Carpenters, Local 67

CARPENTERS, LOCAL 67 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 67 and Boston and Vicinity Carpenters District Council (Aberthaw Construction Co.) and Associated General Contrac- tors of Massachusetts, Inc. and Laborers' Interna- tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 223 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 67 and Boston and Vicinity Carpenters District Council (The Volpe Construction Co., Inc.) and Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts, Inc. and Laborers' International Union of North America , AFL-CIO, Local 223 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 67 (Franchi Construction Co., Inc.) and Associated General Contractors of Massachu- setts, Inc. and Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 22 Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 22 (C. Levesque Co., Inc.) and Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts, Inc. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 218 Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 429 (Spalt Associates) and Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts, Inc. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 49. Cases 1-CD-322, 1-CD-323, 1-CD-328, 1-CD-330, and I-CD-332 January 10, 1974 DECISION, DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES, AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING IN PART 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 Cases I-CD-322 and 1-CD-323 on September 21, 1972, by I Hereinafter AGC. 2 Hereinafter Aberthaw S Hereinafter Volpe. 4 Hereinafter Franchi s Hereinafter Levesque. 6 Hereinafter Spalt 7 Hereinafter Carpenters' Local 67 289 Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts, Inc.,' on behalf of two of its member employers, Aberthaw Construction Company2 and Volpe Con- struction Company; 3 and the filing of a charge in Case 1-CD-328 on October 10, 1972, amended on October 11, 1972, by AGC, on behalf of one of its member employers, Franchi Construction Company, Inc.; 4 and the filing of a charge in Case I-CD-330 on October 12, 1972, by AGC, on behalf of C. Levesque Co., Inc.; 5 and the filing of a charge in Case 1-CD-332 on October 25, 1972, by AGC, on behalf of the Spalt Associates.6 It is alleged in Cases 1-CD-322, 1-CD-323, and 1-CD-328 that United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 67, AFL-CIO,7 and Boston and Vicinity Carpenters District Councils 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 represented by Carpenters' Local 67 rather than, in Cases 1-CD-322 and l-CD-323. to employees represented by Laborers ' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 223,9 and in Case 1-CD-328 to employees represented by Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Local 22. 10 It is alleged in Case l-CD-330 that Laborers' Local 22 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 represented by Laborers' Local 22 rather than to employees represented by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 218.11 Finally, in Case 1-CD-332, it is alleged that Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 429,12 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 represented by Laborers' Local 429 rather than to employees represented by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 49.1.1 Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Boston, Massachusetts, on November 24 and December 4, 5, and 7, 1972, and March 20 and 21, 1973, before Hearing Officer Thomas J. Flynn. All parties appearing were afforded full opportunity to be heard. to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues. There- " Hereinafter Carpenters' District Council e Hereinafter Laborers' Local 223. 10 Hereinafter Laborers' Local 22 11 Hereinafter Carpenters' Local 218 12 Hereinafter Laborers' Local 429 1 i Hereinafter Carpenters' Local 49 208 NLRB No. 23 290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD after, a brief was filed on behalf of the Carpenters' Locals and the Carpenters' District Council. 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 rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds they are free from prejudicial 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: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES The parties agree to the following stipulations: AGC is an association representing employers engaged in the construction and related industries. Volpe, Franchi, and Aberthaw are three of its members. Aberthaw Construction Co. is a Massachusetts corporation engaged in construction and annually receives from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts goods valued in excess of $50,000. Franchi Construction Co., Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation engaged in construction and annually receives from points outside the Commonwealth goods valued in excess of $50,000. C. Levesque Co., Inc., is a Massachusetts corpo- ration engaged in the installation of dry wall. The Company annually receives from points outside the Commonwealth goods valued in excess of $50,000. salt Associates Co. is a sole proprietorship located at Hingham, Massachusetts, engaged in the installa- tion of kitchen cabinets. The Company annually receives from points outside the Commonwealth goods valued in excess of $50,000. Accordingly, we find that the Companies are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LA13OR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Carpen- ters' Local 67, Carpenters' District Council, Carpen- t 'rs' Local 218, Carpenters' Local 49, Laborers' I ocal 223, Laborers' Local 22, and Laborers' Local 429 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. IHE DISPUTES A. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute in these cases involves three different tasks. In Case l-CD-322, the dispute concerns the stripping of forms. Forms are made of metal or wood; they can be preformed or custom made for the shape desired. The forms are used to shape poured concrete until it sets. Then the spanners, locking the forms together, are loosened, and the forms are dismantled. The forms are thereafter stored for further use or erected at another site. In Cases 1-CD-323, l-CD-328, and 1-CD-332, the dispute concerns the unloading of kitchen cabinets. The cabinets arrive by truck; it normally takes 2 to 3 hours to unload a truck. In Case 1-CD-330, the dispute concerns the unloading of dry wall. Dry wall is composed of plaster of paris sandwiched between two layers of composition paper with a finished side and a rough side. The dry wall sheets come in couples with the finished sides facing each other and bound together along the edges by tape. Dry wall arrives by truck; it takes about 2 hours to unload a truck. B. Background and Facts The Unions claiming the work described above are Carpenters and Laborers. 1. Case l-CD-322 Aberthaw is the general contractor at the 100 Summer Street Project in Boston, Massachusetts. According to Robert Swamm, Aberthaw's vice president, Aberthaw, as it has done on past projects, assigned the stripping of forms on this project to a composite crew of carpenters and laborers. Aberthaw Superintendent Shirley Fritter testified that around the first of July he was visited at the jobsite by Edson Thompson, business agent for Local 33 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,14 and Fred Fletcher, general agent of the Carpenters' District Council. Fritter testified that Thompson threatened to shut down the jobsite unless Carpenters' Local 33 received the work. Swamm also testified that Thompson and Fletcher demanded the stripping assignment. Thompson and Fletcher admit claiming the work, but they deny that they made any threats. No strike or walkout occurred at the j obsite. 2. Case I-CD-323 Volpe is the general contractor at the Church Street Project in Boston, Massachusetts. In early September 1972, Joe Clarke, director of industrial relations for AGC, received a phone call from Fletcher advising him that there appeared to be 14 Hereinafter Carpenters' Local 33 CARPENTERS, LOCAL 67 a problem arising on the Volpe project. The problem involved the unloading of the kitchen cabinets. Clarke contacted Volpe and was advised that the assignment of the work had been made to Laborers' Local 223. On September 12, Arthur Flamm, counsel for Carpenters' Local 67 and Carpenters' District Council, called Clarke and sought arbitration of the dispute. Clarke replied that the new contract, under which Flamm sought arbitration, had not yet been approved by Construction Industry Stabilization Committee (established by Executive Order 11588 on March 28, 1972) and was therefore not yet binding on the parties. Flamm stated that he would advise his client to remove its men if there was no arbitration, and Fletcher advised Clarke that he would follow his counsel's advice. Frank Marcucello, superintendent on the Volpe jobsite, testified that McSherry, business agent for Carpenters' Local 67, and Fletcher visited the jobsite, stated the work should be assigned to carpenters, and they would not let the matter drop. Later. a strike occurred on or about September 27, 1972. Fletcher testified that he took the men off the job because of Volpe's failure to go to arbitration. 3. Case 1-CD-328 Franchi is the general contractor for the Hotel Somerset project in Boston, Massachusetts. The project entails the renovation of the existing hotel to apartments. Joseph Lazo, superintendent of Franchi, testified that he assigned, in accord with past practice, the work of unloading the kitchen cabinets to Laborers' Local 22. Thereafter, according to Lazo, the carpenter shop steward told him to give the work to carpenters or he would pull the men off the job. Lazo stated that he offered a composite crew, but the shop steward rejected this and removed the carpen- ters. Thereafter, McSherry arrived and attempted to get the men to return to work. Lazo testified that McSherry was unable to persuade the men to go back to work. McSherry stated that the men did not return to work because it was almost quitting time. The carpenters did return to work the following morning. 4. Case I-CD-330 Levesque is the dry wall subcontractor at the Turnkey project at 640 Salem Street, Malden, Massachusetts. James Zieff, an official for the general contractor at the Malden Turnkey project, testified that Lou Manderini, business agent of Laborers' Local 22, demanded the assignment of unloading dry wall for Laborers' Local 22. Zieff informed Manderini that 291 the subcontractor, Levesque, was in charge of the dry wall and suggested that they meet. Manderini demanded a full laborers crew and would not settle for a composite crew. Levesque and Manderini were unable to settle the dispute. Thereafter, the Laborers conducted a 1-day work stoppage on or about October 17, 1972. 5. Case 1-CD-332 Spalt Associates is the subcontractor responsible for the installation of kitchen cabinets at Merrimac Plaza project in Lowell, Massachusetts. Vincent Farrell, superintendent for the general contractor on the Merrimac Plaza project, testified that George Emerson, president and business agent of Laborers' Local 429, agreed to unload a forthcom- ing truckload of cabinets with a composite crew of laborers and carpenters. However, Carpenters' Local 49 opposed a composite crew, and Richard Scott, superintendent for Spalt, assigned the work to the Carpenters' Local 49. Emerson told Farrell that Laborers would picket the site. On or about October 13, 1972, when a truck arrived with cabinets, the laborers blocked the trailer from backing onto the site for unloading. C. The Contentions of the Parties The Employers in all 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 determination of the merits of each dispute. The Employers further contend that their respective assignments of work were proper and should be affirmed by the Board. Carpenters contends that in Cases l-CD-322, 1-CD-323, and I-CD-328 there is no reasonable cause to believe that the particular Carpenters' Local violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. In Cases 1-CD-322 and 1-CD-323, Carpenters argues that its actions were taken in order to obtain arbitration of the dispute and not in order to obtain the work. In Case 1-CD-328. Carpenters contends that Local 67 did not cause or ratify the work stoppage, and therefore the notice of hearing should be quashed. In regard to Cases 1-CD-330 and l-CD-332. Carpen- ters argues that these disputes are properly before the Board. Further, Carpenters states that, based on reasons such as past practice and employer economy and efficiency, the work assignments made by the respective subcontractors were correct and should be affirmed by the Board. Laborers contends that in Cases 1-CD-322, 1-CD-323, and I-CD-328 relevant factors such as area practice preponderate in favor of having the 292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD work assigned to laborers. In Case 1-CD-330, Laborers states there is no reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. However, if the Board makes an award in Case 1-CD-330, Laborers argues that, in accord with substantial area practice, it should be awarded to employees it represents. In Case 1-CD-332, Laborers alleges that area practice and economy favor an award to Laborers. Finally, in Cases 1-CD-330 and I-CD-332, Laborers contends that the respective subcontractors made their assignments because of coercion by Carpenters and therefore the Board should not affirm the awards. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with the determina- tion 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 violated. Subsequent to the hearing in Case 1-CD-322 AGC filed a motion to amend the charge and other formal documents. In its charge in this case, AGC named as charged parties Carpenters' Local 67 and Carpenters' District Council. In its motion, AGC moves to change the name of charged parties to "United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 33 and Boston and Vicinity Carpenters District Council." Thereafter, Carpenters' Local 33 filed objections to AGC's motion. Since Carpenters' Local 33 did not participate in the hearing, we conclude that it would be inappropriate to make it a party to this case at this time. Accordingly, we will deny the motion to amend. Furthermore, we conclude, in Case 1-CD-322, that the record before us does not establish reasonable cause to believe that either Carpenters' Local 67 or Carpenters' District Council violated Section 8(b)(4)(D). We note that Fritter's testimony regard- ing statements allegedly made by Fletcher, on behalf of the Carpenters' District Council, is too ambiguous to support a finding of reasonable cause. Therefore, in Case 1-CD-322, we shall quash the notice of hearing. In Case 1-CD-323, the record indicates that Carpenters' Local 67 and Carpenters' District Coun- cil demanded the work and that, after an assignment was made to Laborers Local 223, the carpenters went on strike on or about September 27, 1972. Contrary to the contentions of Carpenters' Local 15 As indicated, Carpenters' Local 67 defends in this case on the ground that it struck Volpe to compel arbitration of its work assignment dispute in accordance with a contract between it and Volpe. effective by its terms from June 16, 1972. to June 15, 1973, which provides for arbitration of work assignment disputes ancing under the contract. Volpe claims that the contract was not effective during the strike because it had not yet been 67 and Carpenters' District Council, in the circum- stances of this case, we are not satisfied that all parties have agreed to be bound by a voluntary private settlement or that the carpenters' strike was merely to compel arbitration. The Board has de- clined to find that arbitration proceedings not involving all parties to the dispute constitute an adequate method of adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k). Laborers Local 1184, Southern California District Council of Laborers (Robertson Pipeline Constructors), 192 NLRB 1078. In this case there are two contracts, one between Volpe and the Carpenters and one between Volpe and the Laborers. Though each contract may have an arbitration provision, it does not necessarily follow that all parties have agreed to be bound by a single tripartite arbitration proceeding or that a court, as in the case cited by the Carpenters, will necessarily order a tripartite arbitration proceeding. Therefore, we find no private settlement means sufficient to preclude us from proceeding to a determination of the instant dispute. Further, in these circumstances, we cannot accept Carpenters contention that the strike was merely to compel arbitration. Again, a bipartite arbitration between Volpe and the Carpenters would not necessarily have settled the dispute. Also, since both contracts apparently contain similar work assign- ments to the respective Unions, it is even clearer that a bipartite arbitration would not settle this dispute. Rather, the more direct effect of the Carpenters strike was to pressure Volpe to reassign the work in dispute to Carpenters' Local 67. Accordingly, based on the record before us, Members Fanning and Kennedy find 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. 15 In Case 1-CD-328, the record establishes that the carpenters' shop steward threatened to pull the men off the job unless the work was reassigned to Carpenters' Local 67. Thereafter, the shop steward rejected an offer of a composite crew and a strike ensued. We reject Carpenters' Local 67's contention that it was not responsible for the work stoppage. Carpenters' Local 67 alleges that the shop steward did not have the authority to call the men off the job. Nonetheless, it is clear that Joseph Lazo, superin- tendent of Franchi, negotiated with the shop steward and that the shop steward had apparent authority to speak for the men. Accordingly, we conclude that approved by the Construction Industry Stabilization Committee Member Penello finds that this issue which bears upon whether Carpenters ' Local 67 was seeking enforcement of a contract with Volpe herein was not adequately litigated at the hearing in this nonadversary proceeding and he would remand Case I- CD-323 for a more complete record on which to base a determination CARPENTERS, LOCAL 67 293 Respondent cannot avoid responsibility of its author- ized shop steward. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 640 (Brown Wholesale Electrical Company), 190 NLRB 456. The shop steward was an agent of Carpenters' Local 67 and we therefore find reasonable cause to conclude that there has been a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D). In Case 1-CD-330, the record establishes that Lou Manderini, business agent for Laborers' Local 22, demanded the assignment of unloading dry wall. After reaching no agreement regarding the dispute, Laborers' Local 22 engaged in a 1-day work stoppage. We thus find reasonable cause to believe a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determi- nation. Finally, in Case 1-CD-332, the record reveals that George Emerson, president and agent of Laborers' Local 429, threatened to picket the jobsite if laborers did not unload the cabinets as part of a composite crew. Further, when a truckload of cabinets arrived at the jobsite, laborers blocked the truck from backing onto the site for unloading. We are therefore satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determi- nation. E. Merits of the Disputes Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to the various relevant factors. The following factors are relevant in making a determination of the disputes before us: 1. Cases I-CD-323 and 1-CD-328 a. Collective-bargaining agreements AGC has contracts with both the Laborers and the Carpenters. However, the contracts contain similar jurisdictional assignment language, and AGC admits there is an overlap in the work assignment language. Under these circumstances, we are not satisfied that either the contractual agreement of the Laborers or the Carpenters is entitled to controlling weight for the purposes of our determination. 16 b. Employer practice Representatives of Volpe and Franchi state that their practice has generally been to assign the unloading of kitchen cabinets to laborers. Carpen- ters, citing a recent arbitration decision to support its position, argues that cabinets wrapped in corrugated paper have been traditionally unloaded by carpen- ters. Nonetheless, as general contractors, Volpe and Franchi have usually attempted to assign the work to their regular employees; i.e., laborers. c. Employee skills and efficiency of operation In these cases, the record indicates that both groups of employees possess the requisite skills to perform the work in dispute. However, Volpe and Franchi have laborers on their payroll at most times and it is more economical and convenient to have cabinets unloaded by the regular employees (i.e., laborers). After unloading a truck- load of cabinets, laborers can return to their other work. Volpe and Franchi, as general contractors, do not have sufficient work-other than the unloading of cabinets-to justify having full-time carpenters on the payroll. 2. Case 1-CD-330 a. Collective-bargaining agreement Clarence Levesque testified that he has a contract with the Carpenters. The record also indicates that Levesque has a contract with the Laborers. However, on the record before us, we find that neither contract makes a valid award of the work in dispute. b. Employer practice In the past Levesque has used both carpenters and laborers to unload dry wall. However, as a specialty contractor, Levesque has carpenters on its payroll as steady employees. Accordingly, whenever possible, Levesque has tried to use carpenters to unload dry wall. c. Employee skills and efficiency of operation According to Clarence Levesque , laborers are not good at unloading dry wall . He states that laborers cut the binding tape and handle each sheet , thereby increasing breakage . The carpenters, according to Levesque, are more skillful at doing this work. Further, Levesque argues that it is more economi- cal to use its regular employees (i.e., carpenters) to perform the disputed work. Levesque, stating it has little other work for laborers , argues that it would be too expensive to hire laborers for the one task alone. 16 Our decision herein should not be construed as reflecting upon the ments of Laborers' or Carpenters' contractual claims vis-a-vis Volpe or Franchi. 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Case 1-CD-332 a. Collective-bargaining agreement The record indicates that Spalt has a contract with the Carpenters. However, on the record before us, we find no valid award of the work in dispute. b. Employer practice Spalt, in the past, has preferred to use carpenters for the work, but it has had occasion to use both carpenters and laborers to unload kitchen cabinets. c. Employee skills and efficiency of operation The record indicates that both laborers and carpenters possess the skill to unload cabinets. However, as a specialty contractor, Spalt has little work for laborers and generally does not hire them. Accordingly, Spalt finds it more economical and efficient to use its regular employees (i.e., carpenters) to unload the cabinets. Conclusions In Cases l-CD-323 and 1-CD-328, having consid- ered all pertinent factors present herein , we conclude respectively that employees represented by Laborers' Local 223 and Laborers' Local 22 are entitled to perform the work in dispute. This assignment is consistent with the initial assignments, the Employ- ers' preferred practices , and efficiency of operation. In Case 1-CD-330. having considered all pertinent factors present herein, we conclude that employees who are represented by Carpenters' Local 218 are entitled to perform the work in dispute. This assignment is consistent with the initial assignment, the Employer's preferred practice, and efficiency of operation. Further, we find no evidence that the Employer's initial assignment was a result of unlaw- ful coercion by the Carpenters. In Case 1-CD-332, having considered all pertinent factors present herein , we conclude that employees of Carpenters' Local 49 are entitled to perform the work in dispute . This assignment is consistent with the initial assignment, the Employer's preferred practice, and efficiency of operation . Again, contrary to the Laborers' contentions , we find no evidence that the Employer's initial assignment was a result of unlawful coercion by the Carpenters. In making the above determination, we are awarding the work in question to employees repre- sented by the respective Locals, but not to those Unions or their members. These determinations are limited to particular controversies giving rise to these disputes. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following determination of Disputes: A. Case I-CD-323 1. Employees represented by Laborers' Interna- tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 223, are entitled to perform the work of unloading cabinets at the Church Street Project in Boston, Massachusetts. 2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 67 and Boston and Vicinity District Council are not and have not been entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the above work to employees it represents. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Disputes, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 67 and Boston and Vicinity District Council shall notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Volpe Construction Co., Inc ., by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to its members or employees which it represents rather than to employees of Volpe Construction Co., Inc., represented by Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local223. B. Case I-CD-328 1. Employees represented by Laborers ' Interna- tional Union of North America , AFL-CIO, Local 22, are entitled to perform the work of unloading cabinets at the Hotel Somerset project in Boston, Massachusetts. 2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 67, is not and has not been entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the above work to employees it represents. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Disputes, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 67, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Franchi Construction Co., Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to its members or employees which it represents rather than to employees of Franchi Construction Co., Inc., represented by Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 22. CARPENTERS, LOCAL 67 295 C. Case 1-CD-330 1. Employees represented by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 218, are entitled to perform the work of unloading dry wall at the Turnkey project at 640 Salem Street, Malden, Massachusetts. 2. Laborers' International Union of North Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, Local 22. is not and has not been entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the above work to employees it represents. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Laborers' Interna- tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 22, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring C. Levesque Co., by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to its members or employees which it represents rather than to employees of C. Levesque Co. represented by United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America, Local 218. D. Case 1-CD-332 1. Employees represented by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 49, are entitled to perform the work of unloading cabinets at Merrimac Plaza project in Lowell, Massachusetts. 2. Laborers' International Union of North Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, Local 429, is not and has not been entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the above work to employees it represents. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Disputes, Laborers' Interna- tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 429, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Spalt Associates, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to its members or employees which it represents rather than to employees of Spalt Associ- ates represented by United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 49. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing in this proceeding be, and it hereby is, quashed insofar as it concerns Case 1-CD-322.