Iron Workers Local 167

116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Iron Workers Local Union No. 167, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO and Nurre Glass Co. and Glaziers & Glass Workers Local Union No. 242, of the International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO. Cases 26-CD-94 and 26-CD-95 November 7, 1972 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF, DISPUTE and other materials directly from sources outside the State of Tennessee valued in excess of $50,000. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Iron Workers and Local 242 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 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 charges by Nurre Glass Co., herein called the Employer, and Glaziers & Glass Workers Local Union No. 242, of the International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 242, alleging that Iron Workers Local Union No. 167, International Association of Bridge, Struc- tural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Iron Workers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The charges allege, in substance, that the' Iron Workers, by encouraging and/or engaging in strikes and picketing, violated the Act in that one of the purposes of such conduct was to force the Employer to assign certain work to its members rather than to members of Local 242. Pursuant to an order consolidating cases and notice of hearing, a hearing was held in Memphis, Tennes- see, before Hearing Officer Thaddeus R. Sobieski on August 15, 1972. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence bearing on the issues. 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 Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they 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 Employer, a Tennessee corporation with principal office and place of business in Memphis, Tennessee, is engaged in the installation of glass and allied products. The parties stipulated, and we find, that during the past year the Employer received glass 200 NLRB No. 27 III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employer has installed glass in the Memphis area since 1961, and its predecessor, a national glass company, had done such work since at least 1946. Pursuant to a contract, to which it is signatory, by a multiemployer group, Memphis Glass Contractors, the Employer assigned to members of Local 242 the installation of three revolving glass doors and adjacent glass in the Commerce Tower at Commerce Square in Memphis. Local 242 members began work at the jobsite on July 12, 1972. On July 19 the Iron Workers business agent spoke to the Employer's president and claimed that the revolving door installation was the work of the ironworkers under the "Blue Book" agreement between the Unions' Internationals. The Employer's president referred to the contract with the Memphis Glass Contractors and pointed out that the Employer was not a signatory to the "Blue Book" agreement. Shortly thereafter, the Employer discovered pick- ets, bearing Iron Workers placards, at the jobsite. The picketing continued for approximately half the day, and work at the jobsite was halted. Although there has been no resumption of picketing, the installation of the doors and adjacent glass has not been completed, and the Iron Workers continues to claim the disputed work. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute involves the installation and erection of three revolving glass doors, adjacent glass doors, and overhead glass in the Commerce Tower at the Commerce Square jobsite located on Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that since 1961 it has employed crews composed of glaziers who are represented by Local 242 and that it is familiar with their work methods and abilities. The assignment, the IRON WORKERS LOCAL 167 Employer contends, was made pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement between Memphis Glass Contractors, a multiemployer group of which the Employer is a member, and Local 242 and is further justified by the fact that the disputed work can be more economically and efficiently performed by experienced glaziers. Local 242, in addition to relying upon the factors cited by the Employer, contends that the nature of the disputed work is such that, if any other craft were to perform the work, a duplication of labor expenses would result because it would still be necessary for the glaziers to come in to preserve the glass against unnecessary stress and strain. The only ground upon which the Iron Workers bases its claim to the disputed work is the "Blue Book" agreement between the International Associa- tion of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers and the Brotherhood of Painters, Decora- tors and Paperhangers of America, which defines the installation of revolving doors as the work of the Iron Workers. Local 242 is not signatory to that agree- ment. D. Atlplicability of the Statute The charges herein allege a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The facts show that the Employer assigned the work to its employees, who are members of or are represented by Local 242. The Iron Workers demanded that the Employer take the work away from members of Local 242 and assign it to its members. In support of its demand, the Iron Workers picketed and caused a work stoppage at the jobsite. Accordingly, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated. As the Employer is not a party to a collective- bargaining agreement, with either of the labor organizations here involved, by which it is bound by the Joint Board procedures, it is unnecessary to consider whether Local 242 and the Iron Workers are bound by the Joint Board procedures.' It is thus clear from the foregoing, and we find, that at the time of the instant dispute there did not exist any agreed-upon or approved method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute to which all parties to the dispute were bound. Accordingly, the matter 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 1 Local 189, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (Kahoe Air Balance Co), 197 NLRB No. 17; Local 395, Bridge, 117 an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to all relevant factors involved. The following factors are relevant in making a determination of the dispute before us. 1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements There is no Board certification determining the bargaining representative for the employees assigned to perform the work in dispute. Neither of the labor organizations involved herein has been certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining representative for a unit of the Employer's employees. At no material time herein has the Employer been a party to a collective-bargaining agreement with the Iron Workers. Since its establishment in 1961, the Employer has been a party to successive collective- bargaining agreements with Local 242 through Memphis Glass Contractors, the multiemployer group of which the Employer is a member. The current agreement became effective March 18, 1971, and extends through March 17, 1974. That agree- ment does not recognize any outside agreements. 2. Employer's assignment and past practice Pursuant to article I, section 2 of the agreement between Local 242 and Memphis Glass Contractors, the Employer assigned the work here involved to its employees represented by Local 242. Further, it is currently the area practice to assign such work to employees represented by Local 242, and the Employer has done so since 1964. Moreover, the Employer's predecessor company had employed glaziers represented by Local 242 since at least 1946. 3. Relative skills, efficiency, and economy of operations The Employer strongly favors an award to its employees represented by Local 242 because of their experience in performing the disputed work and the resulting efficiency and economy of operations. Glaziers represented by Local 242 have installed revolving glass doors similar to those involved herein since at least 1964. Moreover, most of these glaziers have had 20 or 30 years' experience in the installation of glass and allied products, while there is no evidence that members of the Iron Workers have any experience in this field. Thus, while the skills required are such that ironworkers could be trained to perform the work, the use of experienced glaziers provided by Local 242 reduces the number of crew Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Telander Bros. Contractors, Inc.), 196 NLRB No. 19. 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD members necessary, the time required to perform the work, and, therefore, the overall cost of operation. Additionally, the nature of the disputed work is such that, if the Employer were required to hire ironworkers to perform the work, a duplication of labor expenses would result because it would still be necessary for the glaziers to come in to preserve the glass against unnecessary stress and strain. CONCLUSION Upon the entire record in this proceeding and after full consideration of all of the relevant factors, in particular the contractual relationship between the Employer and Local 242, the Employer's practice and that of similar employers in the area, and the experience of members of Local 242 in performing the disputed work and the resulting efficiency and economy of operations, we conclude that the employees of the Employer who are represented by Local 242 are entitled to the work in question, and we shall determine the dispute in their favor. In making this determination, we award the work to the employees of the Employer who are represented by Local 242 but not to that Union 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 and the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of Dis- pute. 1. Employees employed by Nurre Glass Co., who are represented by Glaziers & Glass Workers Local Union No. 242, of the International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work in dispute which involves installa- tion and erection of three revolving glass doors, adjacent glass doors, and overhead glass in the Commerce Tower, at the jobsite located at the Commerce Square on Main Street, Memphis, Ten- nessee. 2. Iron Workers Local Union No. 167, Interna- tional Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna- mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require Nurre Glass Co., Memphis, Tennes- see, to assign the above work to ironworkers represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Iron Workers Local Union No. 167, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Nurre Glass Co., by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above determination.