Iron Workers, Local 29

IRON WORKERS, LOCAL 29 313 International Association of Bridge , Structural and Or- namental Iron Workers, Local 29, AFL-CIO (Fab- industries, Inc.) and Oregon-Columbia Chapter, The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. and International Union of Operating Engi- neers, Local Union No. 701, AFL-CIO International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 701, AFL-CIO (Fabindustries, Inc.) and Oregon-Columbia Chapter, The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. and Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 29, AFL-CIO International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 701, AFL-CIO and Hoffman Construc- tion Company and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 29, AFL-CIO International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 701, AFL-CIO and Fabindustries, Inc. and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 29, AFL-CIO. Cases 36-CD-83, 36-CD-84, 36-CD-85, and 36- CD-90 September 27, 1972 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO This is a consolidated proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of charges in Case 36- CD-83 on November 10, 1971, and in Case 36- CD-84, on November 18, 1971, by Oregon-Columbia Chapter, The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.,' on behalf of one of its member em- ployers, Fabindustries, Inc.;2 and the filing of a charge in Case 36-CD-85 on November 18, 1971, by Hoffman Construction Company;3 and the filing of a charge in Case 36-CD-90 on February 28, 1972, amended on March 1, 1972, by Fabindustries. It is alleged in Case 36-CD-83 that International Associa- tion of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Work- ers, Local 29, AFL-CIO,4 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the involved Employer to assign certain work to employees repre- sented by Iron Workers rather than to employees rep- resented by International Union of Operating Engi- neers, Local Union No. 701, AFL-CIO.5 And in Cases 36-CD-84, 36-CD-85, and 36-CD-90, it is al- leged that Engineers also violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Employers therein to assign certain work to employees repre- sented by Engineers rather than to employees repre- sented by Iron Workers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Port- land, Oregon, on January 5, 6, 7, and 10, 1972, in Cases 36-CD-83, 36-CD-84, and 36-CD-85 before Hearing Officer Dale B. Cubbison. AGC, Fabindus- tries, Hoffman, Iron Workers, and Engineers, the par- ties to these proceedings, all appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine witnesses, and to ad- duce evidence bearing on the issues .6 Thereafter, all the parties filed briefs with the Board.7 Subsequent to the January hearing and before a Board decision in Cases 36-CD-83, 36-CD-84, and 36-CD-85, the charge in Case 36-CD-90 was filed. The charge alleged violations similar to those alleged in Cases 36-CD-84 and 36-CD-85. Thereafter, AGC and Fabindustries filed a Motion To Reopen Record and/or To Consolidate Cases in which they urged the Board to reopen the record in Cases 36-CD-83, 36- CD-84, and 36-CD-85 to receive certain additional evidence, which they contended was not in existence until after the close of the January hearing, but which they contended was directly relevant to the scope of any possible order in that proceeding. They also urged that the proceedings in Case 36-CD-90 be consolidat- ed with the proceedings in Cases 36-CD-83, 36- CD-84, and 36-CD-85 since the issue raised by the charge in the former was identical to the issues in- volved in the latter. Hoffman, Iron Workers, and the Regional Director for Region 19 filed responses, con- curring and/or joining in the motion. Engineers filed no response. On April 3, 1972, the Board by its Asso- ciate Executive Secretary granted the motion re- opening the record and remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting a further hearing limited to the issues of the scope of Engineers work stoppages alleged in Case 36-CD-90 and the consequent scope of any possible Board award. That case was also consolidated with Cases 36-CD-83, 36-CD-84, and 36-CD-85 for the pur- poses of hearing and all other proceedings. Thereafter pursuant to notice a further hearing was held in Portland, Oregon, on May 4, 1972, before 1 Hereinafter AGC. 2 Hereinafter Fabmdustnes. 5 Hereinafter Engineers. 6 At the hearing, Hoffman was allowed to intervene in Cases 36-CD-83 3 Hereinafter Hoffman. 4 Hereinafter Iron Workers. and -84 7 AGC and Fabmdustnes filed a point brief 199 NLRB No. 34 314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hearing Officer Cubbison. AGC, Fabindustries, Hoffman, Iron Workers, and Engineers again were present and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses if they desired, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues consistent with the Board's order.' Thereafter AGC and Fabindustries and Hoffman filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hear- ing Officer made at the initial hearing and the re- opened hearing and finds they are free from preju- dical error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the briefs and the entire record in this proceeding and hereby makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES The parties agreed to the following stipulations: AGC is an association representing employers engaged in the construction and related industries. Hoffman and Fabindustries are two of its members. Many of its members, including Fabindustries, have purchased in their last fiscal year materials in excess of $50,000 from points directly outside the State of Oregon. Hoffman is an employer engaged in the heavy and building construction industry in Oregon and nu- merous other states. It has projects involving millions of dollars presently under contract and it has made purchases of goods and materials from points directly outside the State of Oregon exceeding $50,000 during the past year. Accordingly, we find that the Employers are en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated and we find that Iron Workers and Engineers are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. In sum, the work in dispute in these cases con- cerns certain tasks performed in the assembly, modifi- cation, and disassembly of two types of cranes used 8 The evidence submitted at the reopened hearing was in the form of affidavits presented by Fabindustnes on construction sites; i.e., mobile cranes9 and tower cranes.1° What is not in dispute is the operation of the crane during these procedures and the general main- tenance of the crane. These admittedly are functions of employees represented by Engineers. It is all other work involved in assembly, modification, or disas- sembly of these cranes that is in dispute in these cases, as that work is performed for general contractor em- ployers as opposed to crane rental company employ- ers. With respect to mobile cranes this includes, among other things, all the work on the boom itself such as connecting, adjusting, and rerigging lines; driving, securing, and removing pins; mating the bracket holes so that the pins may be driven ; signaling the oiler to move the carrier forward and backward; and signaling the operator as to desired boom move- ments. With respect to tower cranes it includes, among other things, rigging on the ground; guiding the vertical sections and jibs into position and at- taching them; attaching pennant lines; and accom- plishing the necessary cable rigging. B. Background and Facts The Unions claiming the work described above are Iron Workers and Engineers. 1. Case 36-CD-83 Hoffman is a general contractor on the Trojan Nuclear Power Project, hereinafter the Trojan project, which is located some 40 miles northwest of Portland, Oregon. The project involves the construction of a nuclear powerplant owned and operated by Portland General Electric Company. Fabindustries is one of Hoffman's subcontractors on the site and has been awarded the work of fashioning the structural steel portion of the building structure. Immediately to the 9 Mobile cranes are ambulatory cranes with an angled (nonhorizontal) boom usually placed on rubber-tired carriers although large mobile cranes have crawler tracks Another type of mobile crane, the mobile tower crane, is a vertical tower crane placed on a mobile career . When mobile cranes are moved they are stripped to a single butt section plus tip section of boom but they can be lengthened to as much as 300 feet of boom and jib when used on ajobsite. After arrival at the construction site, the lifting capability of the mobile crane and its mobile characteristics are utilized to attach additional sections of boom until the desired length of boom is attained The boom can then be raised from a horizontal to a nearly vertical position with changes in boom length and jib attachments being made as necessary depending on variables such as the weight of the item to be lifted, its distance from the base of the crane, and the height to which it must be raised. 10 Tower cranes are stationary cranes consisting of a vertical tower, set into a concrete foundation , with a horizontal boom mounted near the tip of the tower Frequently, the tower crane is raised in stages as the building (or other structure being constructed) is erected Through this "jacking" procedure, denoted as "modification" work throughout the Decision, the tower crane may be utilized to build a structure many stones beyond its original height. When the structure is finished, the tower crane is disassembled in inverse order of its erection and its structural members are lowered to the ground through the use of whatever types of cranes are available and capable of performing the work IRON WORKERS, LOCAL 29 315 east of the Hoffman building sites, there is a hill on which the cooling tower utilized for cooling the water circulated through the nuclear plant is being built. That construction is being done by Research-Cottrell, Inc." The activity complained of in Case 36-CD-83 occurred at the Trojan project. In the course of their performance of work on the jobsite both Research-Cottrell and Fabindustries used mobile cranes.12 From the times that each Com- pany first used mobile cranes on the jobsite, the work of assembling the mobile cranes, and subsequently modifying the length of their booms and changing jibs, was assigned by each Company to a composite crew consisting of the operator and the oiler on the crane (represented by Engineers) and a crew of ironworkers, the number of ironworkers varying, de- pending on the number needed." On September 7, 1971, for the first time, an Engi- neers representative informed Research-Cottrell's site manager that Engineers considered the work of as- sembling and modifying and disassembling mobile cranes to be exclusively the work of engineers. That same day, Engineers representative instructed the op- erator and oiler working on one of the mobile cranes being used by Research-Cottrell that they should walk off the job if an ironworker touched the rig. During that time, Iron Workers also claimed the work but on a composite crew basis, and at one time its representa- tive stated that ironworkers were not going to be pulled off the work. On September 10, 1971, Research-Cottrell at- tempted to reassemble a mobile crane with a compos- ite crew but the engineer operator and oiler refused to participate in the reassembly on instructions from En- gineers officials since ironworkers were to be involved in the reassembly. During the succeeding 2 months, Research-Cottrell attempted on several occasions to contact Engineers to have an operator and oiler sent out to reassemble that crane with a composite crew, but Engineers failed to send out any of its members. The crane therefore lay idle during that time and Re- search-Cottrell rented manned cranes from another company. The situation of Fabindustries, however, was noticeably better and engineers participated in various changes on mobile cranes on a composite crew basis until November 1971. Subsequently over the November 6-7, 1971, weekend, boom changes were made by a crew of engineers who worked for the owner of the cranes on mobile cranes rented by Re- 11 Hereinafter Research-Cottrell. This company, although involved in the junsdictional dispute in Case 36-CD-83, is not a party to these proceedings since it and Iron Workers and Engineers are parties to procedures for the settlement of such disputes 12 Research-Cottrell first used a mobile crane on the jobsite in March 1971, and Fabindustnes first used one in July 1971 13 The operation of the crane itself was performed by an operator and oiler represented by Engineers search-Cottrell and Fabindustries respectively at the Trojan project. Ironworkers were not present on the jobsite of either Employer when those changes were made. Fabindustries states it did not order the change be made. When the ironworkers at Fabindustries re- turned to the jobsite on Monday, November 8, and discovered that their crane had been modified without a composite crew, they refused to work although they initially remained on the site. However, when the ironworkers at Research-Cottrell learned that the crane used by Fabindustries had also been modified by a crew composed exclusively of engineers, the ironworkers walked off the job. When Fabindustries' ironworkers heard that the ironworkers at Research- Cottrell had left, they also walked off and were subse- quently followed by ironworker contingents at two other employers on the Trojan site. The walkout last- ed from November 8 until November 12, 1971.14 It was this ironworker walkout that precipitated the charge in Case 36-CD-83.15 2. Case 36-CD-84 The scene of controversy in this case is also the Trojan site and the relevant facts reveal essentially a continuation of the events in the preceding case. On Friday, November 12, 1971, Fabindustries re- quired that the boom on one of its mobile cranes be modified by removing the jib. The engineer operator and oiler, pursuant to instructions from officials of the Engineers, refused to do the work if, as Fabindustries intended, ironworkers were going to participate in the modification. Thereafter, the operator and oiler quit. Their engineer replacements arrived on the jobsite on Monday, November 15. Again Fabindustries wished to complete the same operation with the same com- posite crew of engineers and ironworkers and again the engineers refused to work with the ironworkers on oral instructions from an Engineers official who was present on the site. The same sequence of events transpired on No- vember 16 Fabindustries attempting to utilize ironworkers in the crew and the engineer operator stating that he could not work if ironworkers were going to work on the boom. The engineer operator then phoned Engineers chief executive officer who told him to begin operating the crane but if any of the 14 The ironworkers at one of the four employers returned on November 9, 1971. 15 On November 10, 1971, while the ironworker walkout was in progress, the Regional Director for Region 19 filed a petition for injunction under Sec 10(1) of the Act with respect to the jurisdictional dispute between Iron Workers and Engineers at Research -Cottrell. A hearing on the petition was held on November 15, 1971, and that same day the United States District Court for the District of Oregon issued an Order Granting Temporary In- junction enjoining both Iron Workers and Engineers from engaging in juris- dictional work stoppages against Research-Cottrell or any other employer on the Trojan project The injunction itself issued November 16, 1971. 316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ironworkers touched the boom to boom the crane back up. When an ironworker did attempt to handle the boom, the engineer operator ceased work. It was later that day that the temporary injunction, noted at fn. 15, supra, issued. Thereafter, on November 17, in light of Engineers refusal to operate the crane on a composite crew basis, Fabindustries attempted to utilize an ironworker in- stead of an engineer to run the crane. When Engineers discovered what Fabindustries was doing, it estab- lished a picket line at the main entrance to the Trojan site. One of the engineers visited each of the different cranes and tractors on the jobsite and immediately thereafter all the engineers walked off the job. Al- though a separate gate was thereafter set up specifical- ly for Fabindustries' employees, engineers picketed both the Fabindustries' gate and the main gate to the Trojan project on November 17 and 18. This picket- ing continued on November 18 until a Fabindustries' supervisor told the engineers that no cranes were to be operated that day. The charge in Case 36-CD-84 was thereafter filed on November 18. On November 19, the engineers returned to the Trojan site but again refused to handle the crane when Fabindustries attempted to use ironworkers on the crew. Meanwhile, however, a con- tempt hearing in Federal court had been set for later that afternoon on a petition by the Regional Director for Region 19, filed November 18, charging that Engi- neers had violated the Federal court's temporary in- junction, noted at fn. 15, supra. Shortly before that hearing was to be held, the engineer operator was instructed by Engineers to return to work with a com- posite crew, as desired by Fabindustries. The con- tempt hearing was thereafter not held. 3. Case 36-CD-85 The charge in this case concerns certain alleged activity of Engineers involving the Multnomah Ath- letic Club project, hereinafter the Multnomah project, in Portland, Oregon. Hoffman is the general contrac- tor on the project. By mid-November 1971, Hoffman was in the pro- cess of erecting a tower crane at the Multnomah job- site. Shortly after Engineers had placed the pickets at the Trojan jobsite, Engineers Chief Executive Joy telephoned Hoffman's labor relations manager, Hutch- ison, and asked him what job assignments Hoffman was planning to make at the Multnomah jobsite for assembly at the tower crane. When Hoffman's repre- sentative said that the tower crane would be assem- bled by using a composite crew of engineers and ironworkers, Joy responded that Hutchison "had just declared war." Joy demanded exclusive assignment of the crane assembly to engineers on the basis of its agreement with Hoffman. He stated further that Hoffman was "going to put that crane up with Oper- ating Engineers or [Hoffman was not] going to put it up." He also stated that if Hoffman attempted to erect the tower crane with a composite crew that "We [En- gineers] are going to shut it down." The charge in this case was thereupon filed. There was in fact no work stoppage at the Multno- mah site and the tower crane was assembled with a composite crew of engineers and ironworkers. 4. Case 36-CD-9016 As set forth in the affidavits presented at the re- opened hearing, Engineers, subsequent to the first hearing, engaged in refusals to work on January 17 and 20, 1972, at a project on which Fabindustries was working near Underwood, Washington, which is ap- proximately 55 miles east of Portland, Oregon. On February 25, 1972, Engineers engaged in another work stoppage at a project on which Fabindustries was working at 200 Market Street, Portland, Oregon, and on March 1, 1972, Engineers engaged in a work stoppage at a project on which Fabindustries was working at the Lloyd Center project in Portland. All these refusals to work were precipitated by Fabindus- tries' attempts to utilize a composite crew of engineers and ironworkers on the handling of mobile cranes, and were pursuant to the instructions of Engineers officials to refrain from working if ironworkers were used on the crew. Furthermore, the evidence reveals that on March 1, 1972, Engineers Chief Executive Joy stated to the manager of AGC that "everyjob in the entire territory of [the agreement between AGC and Engineers was] going to be down until a year from now when the 10(k) hearing is determined" unless AGC "[live(d) ] up" to its labor agreement and engineers were given all the disputed work on the cranes." 16 In the reopened hearing as noted at In. 8, supra, the evidence consisted solely of various affidavits submitted by Fabindustries detailing the alleged further work stoppages. Although all the parties stipulated that, if the affiants were called to testify, their testimony would be as contained in the affidavits, Engineers stated it was not admitting the truth of the matters contained in the affidavits Engineers , however, presented no contrary evidence of its own. The facts contained in the affidavits therefore stand uncontroverted, and we accept those facts as true. 17 On March 20, 1972, the Regional Director for Region 19 sought a temporary injunction in Federal district court and secured that same day a stipulation, agreed upon by the court on March 21, 1972, whereby Engineers agreed to refrain from engaging in any actions throughout its entire territorial jurisdiction where an objective of such action would be to force the assign- ment of the work of assembly and disassembly of crane booms and towers and related work to individuals who are members of or represented by Engineers rather than to individuals who are members of or represented by Iron Workers The stipulation covered, inter alga, Fabindustries and Hoff- man IRON WORKERS, LOCAL 29 317 C. The Contentions of the Parties The Employers in all the cases argue that there is reasonable cause to believe that in each case the particular Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act and therefore the Board must make a deter- mination of the merits of each dispute. The Employ- ers urge also that a broad award be made covering the entire territorial jurisdiction of the two competing Unions and all affected employers therein. The juris- diction of the Unions is coextensive and covers the entire State of Oregon and certain counties of Washing- ton State. With respect to mobile cranes, Fabindustries and Hoffman state that the work of assembly, modifica- tion, and disassembly has historically been performed by a composite crew. They define a composite crew as two engineers, the operator and oiler, who operate and maintain the crane, and, in addition, members of the craft working with the crane who do the work of rigging, hookup, signaling, and so forth. In these cases, the craft involved is ironworkers.11 The com- posite crew, the Employers contend, is the method which is most efficient and economical to use, which has been the area practice to use, and which they have traditionally favored. They contend further that the contract under which Engineers claims the work has, in fact, been applied to use the composite crew basis. Thus, here, AGC and Fabindustries state that the work in dispute should be given to ironworkers when ironworkers are on the job and will be, or are, or have been using the cranes. The number of ironworkers to be used, they state, should depend on the particular need and circumstances. Hoffman states that such work should be assigned to ironworkers, varying in numbers, when ironworkers are already on the job- site, are available, and are or will be working with the crane. Where ironworkers will not be working with the crane, Hoffman would reserve the right to be free to assign the work to a composite crew including members of the craft that would be using the crane. With respect to tower cranes, the Employers state that the work of assembling, modifying, and disas- sembling tower cranes has historically been done by a composite crew of one or two engineers and a crew of ironworkers. Thus, they argue, the work in dispute here should be awarded to ironworkers. Their reasons are as noted above for mobile cranes with the addi- tional factor of the safety they state arises from the ironworkers' skills and training on tower cranes. Iron Workers contends that it did not authorize, sanction, or, as an organization, engage in any work stoppage but it recognizes that there were employees is Other composite crews in other situations on mobile cranes have been Engineers and, e.g., Carpenters or Pipefitters , or He Bucks. represented by Iron Workers who for a period of time refused to work for Fabindustries in November 1971. As the Employers do, Iron Workers argues for a broad work award. With respect to mobile cranes, Iron Workers ar- gues that when a mobile crane is assigned for use by ironworkers, or by multiple crafts including ironwork- ers, the work of assembly, modification, and disas- sembly should always be assigned to a composite crew composed of (1) an operator and oiler represented by Engineers, and (2) ironworkers, the number of ironworkers to be that number that is required to perform the work in a safe and expeditious manner. With respect to tower cranes, Iron Workers claims that the crew used for assembly, modification, and disas- sembly should be composed of ironworkers, supple- mented by the operator who will run the crane and a mechanic, if this is desired by the employer. Iron Workers' reasons for such assignments with respect to mobile and tower cranes are the same as those ad- vanced by the Employers. Engineers in its brief filed after the first hearing denied that reasonable cause to believe that violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D) existed in those cases in which it was a Respondent.19 Engineers filed no brief after the reopened hearing with respect to Case 36-CD-90, in which it was also the Respondent. Engineers ar- gued after the first hearing that the scope of the Board's order should be a narrow one since there was then no showing that the disputes ranged beyond the Trojan and Multnomah projects. As to the work in dispute, Engineers claims that with respect to both mobile and tower cranes, all as- sembly, modification, and disassembly work on these cranes is within the exclusive jurisdiction of Engi- neers. Its position is based primarily on its contracts with the Employers involved. Engineers also claims a composite crew is no more efficient than a crew com- posed exclusively of engineers. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with the deter- mination of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been vio- lated. In Case 36-CD-83, the facts show the ironwork- ers' walkout had as an object the forcing of Fabindus- tries to assign the disputed work on the mobile crane on the site to them rather than to engineers20 In Case 19 In each case it claimed its contract with the Employer involved covers the disputed work and makes any work stoppages therein lawful. Further, in Case 36-CD-85, it claimed the conversation which constitutes the sole evi- dence of that case is too vague to support a finding of specific intent. 20 It is clear from the record that their walkout was in furtherance of their Union's announced policy that the work in dispute was properly the work Continued 318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 36-CD-84, the uncontroverted facts establish that Engineers engaged in various refusals to work with an object of forcing Fabindustries to assign the work in dispute to it rather than to Iron Workers?' In Case 36-CD-85, the facts show that Engineers chief execu- tive in a phone conversation with Hoffman's labor relations manager threatened that Engineers would shut down the crane on the Multnomah site if Hoff- man did not give Engineers the disputed work and warned that Hoffman was going to put the crane up with engineers or Hoffman was not going to put it up22 In Case 36-CD-90 the facts demonstrate that Engineers engaged in numerous other work stoppages all with an object of forcing the assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by it rather than to employees represented by Iron Workers. Therefore we conclude on the basis of the uncon- troverted facts that there is reasonable cause to be- lieve a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has occurred in each of the four cases now before us. The dispute, therefore, is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act, and we now turn to the merits. 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 all relevant factors. In International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company),23 the Board set forth the following criteria to be con- sidered in the making of an affirmative award in a 10(k) proceeding: The Board will consider all relevant factors in determining who is entitled to the work in dis- pute, e.g., the skills and work involved, certifica- tions by the Board, company and industry of ironworkers and not the work of engineers, and in all the circumstances we conclude that the fact that this particular walkout may not have been expressly authorized by their union officials does not negate our finding reasonable cause herein 21 Engineers claim that its contract with Fabindustnes gave it this work is no reason to view this dispute as outside the scope of Sec. 8(b)(4)(D). Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 28, AFL-CIO (Die- sel Construction, a division of Carl A Morse, Inc.), 194 NLRB No. 18, fn 13, and cases cited therein. 22 For the reasons noted in the above footnote, Engineers contractural claim here does not prohibit a finding of reasonable cause Contrary to Engineers claim , we hardly find Joy's statements vague nor do we see in them a mere complaining that Hoffman would violate its contract with Engineers if it used a composite crew on the assembly of the tower crane Engineers citation to Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, Local 23P (Buyer's'Guide, Inc), 167 NLRB 958, is inapposite . There, where the Board found no reasonable cause to find a violation had been committed, the statements by the union consisted only of comments that "they would take appropriate action" and "we are not going to stand still" if it were not assigned the disputed work. 2 135 NLRB 1402. practice, agreements between unions and be- tween employers and unions, awards of arbitra- tors, joint boards, and the AFL-CIO in the same or related cases, the assignment made by the em- ployer, and the efficient operation of the employer's business.24 1. Employers' assignment and preference (a) Mobile cranes: The general practice of Fabin- dustries and Hoffman has been to assign the work of assembling, modifying, and disassembling mobile cranes to a composite crew. Consistent with that prac- tice, Fabindustries has uniformly assigned such work to a crew of engineers and ironworkers for the 12 years it has been engaged in the steel-erecting indus- try 25 and Hoffman has assigned this work to a crew of engineers and ironworkers, when ironworkers has been the craft using the crane. We find this factor favors the assignment of the work in dispute here to employees represented by Iron Workers.26 (b) Tower cranes: The evidence reveals that the consistent past practice with respect to the assembly, modification, and disassembly of tower cranes has been to use a composite crew consisting of an opera- tor and a mechanic, both members of Engineers, and crew of four ironworkers?' The entire group is under the direction of an ironworker foreman . The past practice here favors the assignment of the work in dispute to employees represented by Iron Workers. 2. Area practice (a) Mobile cranes: The evidence shows that the consistent practice of employer-contractors in the Or- egon-Washington area has been to assign the work of assembly, modification, and disassembly on a com- posite crew basis. Numerous industry witnesses testi- 24 135 NLRB at 1410-11. 25 In the last 5 years there have been two exceptions to this policy where ironworkers were joined by boilermakers in the work for Fabindustnes. 26 Engineers claims that there were several boom changes and mobile crane assemblies made by Fabindustnes using engineers only on the Trojan project site. The record shows only one such instance That occurred over the No- vember 6-7, 1971 , weekend and Fabindustnes•states it knew nothing of that change, the work having been done by engineers employed by the rental company that owned the crane Engineers also claims that Hoffman has at times used engineers exclusively to assemble and disassemble its own mobile cranes. The record shows that in those few situations where this was done the engineers who took the ironworkers' places were employees on Hoffman 's own payroll whose main functions were unrelated to this type of work and who were not hired for this assembly or disassembly work only. Further, it is not clear from the record whether there were any ironworkers on the jobsite when the work was done. 27 The only variation from this set assignment has been in certain instances where Hoffman because of the proximity of a jobsite to its shop has been able to utilize an employee or employees from the shop to help in this work. These employees are engineers. They have, however, performed similar work for Hoffman for a number of years and have received their training on the job working under ironworker supervision IRON WORKERS, LOCAL 29 319 lied that this is the procedure that has consistently been followed and they testified that this procedure has continued after June 1, 1971, the effective date of the most recent Engineers-AGC contract.28 Engineers does not dispute the evidence which indicates the assignment of the work on a composite crew basis. Rather it argues that Iron Workers claim made here would in fact upset the past practice since Engineers considers that claim to be broader than the past practice. Such argument does not negate the face that the composite crew basis has been the one consis- tently used. The scope of Iron Workers claim is dis- cussed in our Conclusion on the Merits of the Dispute, infra. With respect to the area practice on mobile cranes, the evidence favors the assignment of the dis- puted work to employees represented by Iron Workers. (b) Tower cranes. Unrefuted evidence with re- spect to the area practice of assigning the work of assembly, modification, and dissassembly of tower cranes shows that the employer-contractors uniformly award that work to a composite crew of engineers and ironworkers. Accordingly, this factor favors the assignment of the work in dispute here to employees represented by Iron Workers. 3. Economy and efficiency (a) Mobile cranes: Fabindustries, Hoffman, and Iron Workers contend that the composite crew basis is the most efficient and economical method for per- forming the work of assembly, modification, and dis- assembly of mobile cranes. Boom assembly can be accomplished by this crew in about 2 hours and boom modifications can be accomplished in less than a half hour. The record shows that it is difficult to precisely pinpoint at what time a modification or disassembly of the crane will take place. One virtue of the compos- ite crew is that the craft using the crane, here ironworkers, is on the jobsite already and thus is read- ily available to perform the work. Moreover, when this work is finished, the ironworkers, or whatever the craft involved, can and do then return to other work on the project. Although it is possible to perform boom modifications with only an operator and an oiler, both Fabindustries and Hoffman state that to utilize only these two engineers would increase the amount of time that the job ordinarily takes with a 28 Any variations in procedure from the composite crew basis have been limited to those situations where a crane arrived on the job on weekends or several days before arrival of members of the craft who would be working with the crane on the site. In those cases the employees delivering the crane have at times performed the assembly or disassembly tasks themselves. Other situations are where the crane rental company itself was obligated to furnish the crane with the boom assembled or was requested to make a boom modifi- cation over a weekend as a matter of efficiency. composite crew. This, in turn, would idle other em- ployees' who are waiting for the boom modifications to be made before their job sequence can continue. The alternative to have just the operator and oiler perform the modification work, i.e., the dispatching of additional engineers to perform the assembly and di- sassembly, would also result in an increase in costs and time lost. These additional engineers would not normally be present on the jobsite, hence they would have to be dispatched from the hiring hall. While they were traveling to the jobsite, the work of other em- ployees might be interrupted. After the engineers did the work, there would be no further need for their' services on the job. Regardless of the amount of time spent on the work involved, engineers would have to be paid for a minimum of 4 hours' work.29 Engineers again states that the scope of Iron Workers claim here is so broad as to hinder the econo- my and efficiency of the operation. We find that considerations of economy and effi- ciency favor an assignment of the work in dispute here to employees represented by Iron Workers. (b) Tower cranes. Certain of the' considerations noted above with respect to the mobile cranes apply here also. Thus the composite crew basis of engineers and ironworkers is more efficient and economical since the ironworkers are able to do other jobs on the project after the work of assembly or modification or disassembly is completed. The engineers can perform no other jobs. Additionally, as noted below, because of the hazardous nature of the work, special skills are involved in working on tower cranes. These skills, which are acquired through an extensive training pro- gram and long experience, are possessed by ironwork- ers but not by engineers. The familiarity with the work in dispute that ironworkers possess thus helps to keep costs down and promotes the speedier completion of the work. The considerations of economy and efficiency thus favor an assignment 'of the work in dispute here to employees represented by Iron Workers. 4. Skills, training, and safety (a) Mobile cranes: it is undisputed that no excep- tional skills are required for the performance of the disputed work. While it appears that Iron Workers does include in its apprentice program instruction on the assembly and disassembly of mobile cranes, we do not consider this persuasive here since the record shows that the only requisite to adequate performance of the tasks involved is brief experience on the work at hand. In such circumstances, we consider the factors 29 Engineers master agreement calls for this mrmmum. 320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS,BOARD here do not favor particularly either Iron Workers or Engineers. (b) Tower cranes: The disputed work tasks in- volved on tower cranes are more complex and de- mand much greater skills than do the tasks involved on mobile cranes. Iron Workers has an apprentice program which teaches those skills necessary for the safe performance of the disputed work on tower cranes. There is no evidence that engineers generally possess the requisite skills to perform the work in- volved and those few engineers employed by Hoff- man who possess these skills learned them from Hoffman's ironworker personnel. The special work involved is reflected in the equipment, including spe- cial harness belts and hats, that ironworkers, but not engineers, have. The employer-contractors who testi- fied at the hearing consistently stressed the hazardous nature of the work involved, noting especially the height and obligations of the job, and stated that ironworkers but not engineers possessed the training and skill to perform the tasks safely. The considerations of skill, training, and safety thus favor the assignment of the work in dispute here to employees represented by Iron Workers. 5. Relevant collective-bargaining contracts Mobile and tower cranes: Engineers contends that the disputed work on both mobile and tower cranes has been awarded to it specifically by contract. It states as support for its position the following provi- sions of its contract with AGC (effective June 1, 1970, to May 31, 1973): (a) Article XV, B, 13, which states: Operating Engineers shall assemble and disas- semble cranes, booms, plants, and all other equipment operated by Operating Engineers cov- ered by this agreement; (b) Article XV, A, 10, which states: Crews on tower cranes shall consist of an Opera- tor and the crews used in the jacking of Tower Cranes shall be members of the craft; (c) Article XV, A, 5, which states: , Crews on all track or truck cranes and/or similar equipment with any and/or all attachments .. . shall consist of an Operator and an Assistant to Engineer (oiler) ... [except for certain types of enumerated cranes not relevant here]. However, should anyone be employed to assist the operator of these cranes he shall be an Assistant to Engi- neer (excluding hook tending not normally done by Operating Engineers). Engineers argues that the clear and unambiguous language of the provisions quoted above requires that engineers do all crane assembly and disassembly work must be a member of Engineers. It argues that, when read together, the provisions demonstrate the disput- ed work was awarded to Engineers exclusively. The Employers, however, argue that nowhere in the above-quoted provisions does it state that the dis- puted work was to be done exclusively by engineers and they further argue that there is no evidence in the record that this key additional word was bargained for or intended by the parties in collective bargaining. They argue, and the record does show, that both prior to and subsequent to the June 1, 1970, effective date of the contract under which Engineers now claims the disputed work, the practice in the area has been to assign the work of assembly, modification, and disas- sembly on mobile and tower cranes on a composite crew basis. The Employers therefore argue that ap- parently it has been understood by the parties that the contractural language did not require assignment of the work exclusively to Engineers as it now claims. The Employers further argue that Engineers claim is counterbalanced by the provision in Iron Workers contract with AGC which states that "Craft jurisdiction is neither determined nor awarded by classification and/or scope of work appearing in any AGC Labor Agreement." Engineers states, however, that no similar provision appears in its agreement with AGC. Iron Workers makes the same argument as the Employers and states further that its current contract with AGC (which runs from July 21, 1971, to July 20, 1973) states at article I, section 1, that "The work covered by this Agreement shall be that which is rec- ognized as properly coming under the jurisdiction of the [Iron Workers]."30 It notes that article IV of its constitution sets forth the jurisdictional claims of ironworkers and includes, in its scope of work claimed, the erection, installation, handling, and dis- mantling of cranes when used on all forms of con- struction work. It therefore argues that the provisions of its constitution, supplementing those of its contract with AGC, demonstrate that the work in dispute is properly recognized as within Iron Workers jurisdic- tion. We conclude that the factor of contract rights favors neither Iron Workers nor Engineers. Although Engineers argues that its contract clearly gives it the work in dispute, we also note that the language of certain provisions in Iron Workers contract arguably gives that work to its members. We note also the longstanding practice of using a composite crew, which the language of Engineers contract did nothing to change. Under the foregoing circumstances, both Unions appear to have some colorable contract right to the disputed work. and that anyone hired to assist the operator and oiler 30 The same clause was in its 1968-71 agreement with AGC. IRON WORKERS, LOCAL 29 321 6. Board certifications and awards Mobile and tower cranes: There are no outstand- ing certifications by the Board covering the work in dispute and there is no agreed-upon method binding all parties to these proceedings to any voluntary pro- cedure for the resolution of jurisdictional disputes. 7. Conclusions as to the merits of the dispute On the basis of the foregoing considerations, it is clear that the relevant factors favor a continuation of the Employers' assignment of the work of assembly, modification, and disassembly of both mobile and tower cranes on a composite crew basis. We note particularly that the Employers' assignment and past practice, the area practice, the efficiency and econo- my of the Employers' operation (and, with respect to the tower cranes, the skills and training needed) all favor the conclusion that a composite crew is the most satisfactory method of performing these tasks. We have noted Engineers claim that its contract with AGC conclusively gives to it the work in dispute. But in light of certain of the provisions in Iron Workers contract as noted above and the past practice of using a composite crew which continued after Engineers contract became effective, we cannot say that Engi- neers contract is so clear and unambiguous as to con- stitute a defense in this 10(k) proceeding.31 Having decided that the work of assembly, modifi- cation, and disassembly of mobile and tower cranes is best accomplished by a composite crew, we will make an award in the following manner. Mobile cranes: The record shows that the com- posite crew basis is the most desirable method to utilize for assembly, modification, or disassembly work on mobile cranes but it also shows that the com- posite crew has been composed at times of engineers and crafts other than ironworkers. The general criteri- on has been to utilize whatever craft was then working with the crane. The facts of the cases before us pre- sently, however, show that ironworkers was the craft that was to work with the crane involved in each instance. The facts of the cases before us also show that, in all but one instance, the ironworkers were present on the jobsite when'the disputed work was to be or was performed. That single exception was the weekend of November 6-7, 1971, when a modification of the mo- bile crane at Fabindustries was made when ironwork- ers were not then present on the jobsite, although they had, in fact, commenced their work on the site. At the hearing, Iron Workers representative stated that his Union did claim a right to participate in any modifi- 31 lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, Local No 24-P (The Beacon Journal Publishing Company), 185 NLRB No 45 cation made on a mobile crane once actual on job construction work had started and ironworkers had begun their work, even if, at the time the modification was to be made, e.g., here, the weekend of November 6-7, 1971, ironworkers were not on the site. We per- ceive as the key here in all the foregoing discussion of the factors related to mobile cranes that the economy and efficiency of the Employers' operations were best served by utilizing a composite crew because the ironworkers were present on the jobsite and were thus readily available to handle the work in dispute. If ironworkers are not present on the site when a change is to be made, as they were not on the November 6-7, 1971, weekend, there is no showing in the record that the Employers' practice, the area practice, the econo- my and efficiency of operations, or any other factor would call for their doing the work in dispute 32 In such circumstances, we award the work in dispute here to employees of the above Employers who are currently represented by Iron Workers but not to the Union or its members, whenever the em- ployees are present on the jobsite, and have been, or are, or will be working with the mobile crane in the construction process in conformity with the Employ- ers' above-described composite crew practice.33 (b) Tower cranes: The record here shows that ironworkers have always done the disputed work and thus we award the work to employees of the above Employers who are currently represented by Iron Workers but not to the Union or its members. 8. Scope of the award The Employers involved herein and Iron Work- ers request that the Board issue a broad work award encompassinng all employers engaged in work similar to the Employers herein on all jobsites within the territorial jurisdiction of Iron Workers and Engineers. This jurisdiction is coextensive.34 The Employers and 32 This is not to say that we award the work in dispute in Case 36-CD-83 to engineers, however The situation that occurred over the November 6-7, 1971, weekend was the type of situation noted at In . 28 of our decision herein. As noted by Hoffman in its brief, in such situations the practices of the employers in the area have vaned , with each case being controlled by the employer's agreement with the crane rental company as to which employer's personnel were to make the modifications. This in turn has generally been determined by the terms of the crane rental-with or without operator-and the evaluation of the efficiency and economy factors involved . Although, in the November 6-7, 1971, modification, the employees who did the work in dispute worked for the crane rental company and happened to be engineers, it would not follow that engineers would always be the group doing this work. Thus, we leave the assignment of work in these situations to the terms of the crane rental agreement. 33 Iron Workers also appears to claim the disputed work: (1) If the mobile crane is to be used on a multicraft basis, i.e, when more than one craft is to use the crane, as long as ironworkers would be one of the crafts utilizing the crane , or (2) if the crane arrived on the jobsite a few days before the ironworkers began work, if the nonworkers were to work with the crane during the construction project. Whatever the merits of these two claims, we intimate no opinion on them since the facts of the cases before us with regard to Fabindustnes and Hoffman involve neither of these two situations 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Iron Workers contend that such an award is necessary in order to avoid a repetition of similar jurisdictional claims and attendant work stoppage at construction sites within the territorial jurisdiction of the Unions. We note that the incidents of actual work stoppages in the four cases before us have ranged from the Tro- jan project, 40 miles northwest of Portland, Oregon, to at least three projects in Portland itself to the Un- derwood, Washington, project some 55 miles east of Portland. These incidents have covered the entire ge- ographic jurisdiction of the Unions. We note also that the Employers' businesses are at least-as extensive as the Unions' jurisdiction. We note that on March 1, 1972, after the first injunction, limited to the two sites in Cases 36-CD-83, 36-CD-84, and 36-CD-85, had issued, Engineers Chief Executive Joy stated to the manager of AGC that "every job in the entire territo- ry" of Engineers agreement with AGC was going to be down until the Board's determination of the dis- pute in those cases if Engineers was not given the work in dispute. We note that only after the Regional Director sought a second Federal court injunction extending to the full jurisdiction of the Unions and covering any employer therein and secured from En- gineers a stipulation to refrain from alleged unfair labor practices did these work stoppages cease. Under such circumstances, we find the evidence demon- strates a proclivity of the Respondents to engage in further unlawful conduct with attendant work inter- ruptions at other jobsites involving other employers unless a broad award is made here. Accordingly, we conclude the issuance of a broad award is appropriate in this proceeding 3s 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 pro- ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of the Disputes. A. Mobile Cranes 1. Employees employed by Fabindustries, Inc., or Hoffman Construction Company, or any other em- ployer engaged in the similar type of work and who are represented by International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Lo- 34 Specifically the jurisdiction covers the State of Oregon and the counties of Khckitat, Skamania, Clark, Cowlitz, Wahkiakum in Washington and that portion of Pacific County south of a straight line made by extending the north boundary line of Wahkiakum County west to the Pacific Ocean 35 Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 28, AFL-CIO (Diesel Construction, a Division of Carl A Morse, Inc), 194 NLRB No 18. cal 29, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the disputed work involved in the assembly, modification, and dis- assembly of mobile cranes, exclusive of operation of the cranes during these procedures, whenever these employees are present on the jobsite and have been, or are, or will be working with these cranes in the construction process, in such number as appropriate depending on the particular need and circumstances, in conformity with the Employers' composite crew basis wherever the territorial jurisdiction of Interna- tional Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna- mental Iron Workers, Local 29, AFL-CIO, and of International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 701, AFL-CIO, coincides. 2. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 701, AFL-CIO, is not and has not been entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the Employ- ers herein or any other employer-member of the AGC (Oregon-Columbia Chapter) to assign such disputed work to employees currently represented by such la- bor organization. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Disputes, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 701, AFL- CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring the Employers, by means pro- scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the above work in dispute to its members rather than to employees represented by International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 29, AFL-CIO. B. Tower Cranes 1. Employees employed by Fabindustries, Inc., or Hoffman Construction Company, or any other em- ployer engaged in the similar type of work and who are represented by International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Lo- cal 29, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the disputed work involved in the assembly, modification, and dis- assembly or tower cranes exclusive of the operation of the cranes during these procedures, in such number as appropriate depending on the particular need and circumstances wherever the territorial jurisdiction of International Association of Bridge, Structural and Oranamental Iron Workers, Local 29, AFL-CIO, and of International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 701, AFL-CIO, coincides. 2. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 701, AFL-CIO, is not and has not been entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the Employ- ers herein or any other employer-member of the AGC IRON WORKERS, LOCAL 29 323 (Oregon-Columbia Chapter) to assign such disputed work to employees currently represented by such la- bor organization. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Disputes, International Union of Operating Engineers , Local Union No. 701, AFL- CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring the Employers, by means pro- scribed by Section•8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the above work in dispute to its members rather than to employees represented by International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 29, AFL-CIO.