Carpenters, Local Union No. 1759

CARPENTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 1759 647 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Floor Coverers and Decorators Local Union No. 1759, AFL-CIO (AMG Sign Co.) and Associated Trades and Crafts International Union, Local 1 . Case 6-CD-518 May 16, 1974 effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, the ATC and Carpenters are labor organizations within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , based on a charge filed by Associated Trades and Crafts International Union, Local 1, herein called ATC. The charge alleges that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Floor Coverers and Decorators Local Union No. 1759, AFL-CIO, herein called Carpenters , violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain activity in order to force AMG Sign Co., herein called Employer, to assign certain work to individuals represented by the Carpenters rather than to employees of the Employer represented by ATC. A duly scheduled hearing was held on February 5, 1974, before Hearing Officer Sandra Beck Levine. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issue. 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. BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer is a sole proprietorship engaged in the manufacture and installation, wholesale and retail, of electric signs and in general construction work . During the preceding 12-month period, the Employer purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for use within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania . We find, as the parties have stipulated, that the Employer is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. We further find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will III. THE DISPUTE A. The Work in Dispute The parties have stipulated that the dispute concerns the assignment of the following work tasks: Installation of wall covering fabric at the Green- tree Cedar Construction site of Cinemette Corpo- ration in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. B. Background and Facts of the Dispute ATC members are engaged in all crafts in the construction trade. The Employer is a member of the United Contractors' Association, and ATC repre- sents employees employed by members of the Association pursuant to a contract which extends from January 1, 1973, to December 31, 1974. That contract provides for a sole and exclusive referral system through which ATC supplies needed employ- ees for member employers. The two employees hired by the Employer to do the work in dispute, a carpenter and helper, were hired through this referral system. Such work was begun in January 1974 and completed that same month; however, the record indicates that the Employer intends to perform similar work in the future if it becomes available. On January 16, 1974, according to Gerson, owner of the Employer, Poplowski, business agent for the Carpenters, threatened to picket the jobsite because ATC members were doing the work and Poplowski believed Carpenters should have that work. Accord- ing to Poplowski, however, he merely confirmed a belief that members of ATC were working for substantially lower wage rates than those paid to Carpenter members and then informed Gerson that he would have to put up informational pickets protesting the lowering of area standards. No picketing took place. C. Contentions of the Parties ATC contends that a jurisdictional dispute exists and that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated because Po- plowski threatened to picket for the purpose of obtaining the disputed work. It argues that the disputed work should be awarded to employees 210 NLRB No. 83 648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD represented by it on the basis of its collective- bargaining agreement with the Employer, the Em- ployer's assignment of the work to ATC members, and the past practice favoring those employees. The Employer appears to be in substantial agreement with this position. The Carpenters contends that no jurisdictional dispute exists which is cognizable under Section 10(k) of the Act because the evidence does not support a reasonable belief that it violated Section 8(b)(4)(D). Its position is that Poplowski was merely protesting the undercutting of area wages and that it is not claiming the work in dispute. D., Applicability of the Statute 2. Employer's assignment, preference, and experience The Employer's preference for ATC is evidenced by its assignment of the work to employees who were members of that Union . The Employer's testimony indicates complete satisfaction with work done by these employees. 3. Employer and area practice The Employer's past practice has been to use carpenters and helpers referred by ATC for work similar to that in dispute. It appears that the area practice is also to use carpenters for work similar to that in dispute. The charge, duly investigated by the Regional Director, alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(4XD) of the Act. In disposing of this case, we are not required to find that the Carpenters in fact engaged in unlawful conduct as alleged. All we need determine in this proceeding is that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Carpenters engaged in such conduct. We are satisfied that the record warrants such a conclusion. For, as already explained, it contains the testimony by Gerson that Poplowski threatened picketing because Carpenter members were not performing the work in dispute. While Poplowski's version of his conversation with Gerson differs materially, we need not resolve any conflicts in testimony in this proceeding.' Accordingly, we find that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to all relevant factors involved. The following factors are relevant in making a determination of the dispute before us: 1. Collective-bargaining agreement The Employer is a member of the United Contrac- tors' Association and ATC is the bargaining repre- sentative under a contract with the Association which runs from January 1, 1973, to December 31, 1974. The employees engaged in the disputed work for the Employer were hired pursuant to the referral provisions of the contract. The Carpenters has not had a contract with the Employer. Conclusions Upon the record as a whole, and after full consideration of all relevant facts involved, we conclude that the employees of the Employer who are represented by ATC are entitled to the work in question. The collective-bargaining agreement be- tween the Employer and ATC, the Employer's preference and assignment of the work to ATC, and the Employer's past practice of having such members of ATC do similar work support this conclusion on the instant record. In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to the employees of the Employer who are currently represented by ATC, 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 makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees of AMG Sign Co., who are current- ly represented by Associated Trades and Crafts International Union, Local 1, are entitled to do the work of installating wall covering fabric at Greentree Cedar Construction site of Cinemette Corporation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Floor Coverers and Decorators Local Union No. 1759, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require AMG Sign Co. to assign such disputed work to employees represented by that labor organi- zation. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision 1 International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Western Electric Company, Incorporated), 141 NLRB Workers, Local 34$ AFL-CIO (Dick Tile and Marble Company, Inc.), 193 888. NLRB 769; Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical CARPENTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 1759 649 and Determination of Dispute, United Brotherhood requiring AMG Sign Co., by means proscribed in of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Floor Cover- Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the disputed work to its ers and Decorators Local Union No. 1759, AFL-CIO; members rather than to employees represented by shall notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in Associated Trades and Crafts International Union, writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or Local 1.