Local 481, Electric Workers

LOCAL 481, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 431 Local 481, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Huber, Hunt & Nichols Incorporated and Market Square Associates and Local 1395, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 2J-CD-154 and 25- CD-155 January 31, 1975 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing charges filed by Huber, Hunt & Nichols Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as Huber, and Market Square Associates, alleging that Local 481, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Local 481, violated Section 8(bX4XD) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring Huber and/or Market Square Associates to assign certain work to employees represented by Local 481 rather than to employees represented by Local 1395, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Local 1395. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer John W. Gray on November 12, 1974. All parties received notice of the hearing. Huber, Market Square Associates , and Local 481 appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, Local 481 filed a brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the basis of the brief and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS The parties stipulated that during the past year, Huber, an Indiana corporation, and Market Square Associates, an Indiana limited partnership, had contracts to supply goods or services valued in excess of $50,000 to the city of Indianapolis and that the city of Indianapolis purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from sources outside the 216 NLRB No. 83 State of Indiana. The parties further stipulated that Ermco Electric, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Ermco, an Indiana corporation, is an electrical subcontractor and that during the preceding calen- dar year it had gross revenues in excess of $50,000 from sources outside the State of Indiana. The record further discloses that Indianapolis Power and Light Co., hereinafter referred to as IPALCO, a public utility licensed as a corporation by the State of Indiana, had gross revenues during the past preced- ing calendar year in excess of $500,000 and sold goods and services worth in excess of $50,000 to customers located outside the State of Indiana. Accordingly, we find that Huber, Market Square Associates, IPALCO, and Ermco Electric, Inc., are engaged in businesses affecting 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 The parties stipulated, and we find, that Locals 481 and 1395 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute as described in the notice of hearing is the installation of recessed overhead street lights and related electrical work at the Market Square Arena project in Indianapolis, Indiana. B. Background Since 1971, the city of Indianapolis has acted as general contractor over the Market Square Arena construction project. This project consists of two parking garages and a top level plaza and arena which join the two garages and span Market Street. Huber was employed by the city as the construction manager for the project and Huber, on behalf of the city, engaged various contractors to perform the various phases of work on the project. IPALCO, whose employees are represented by Local 1395, was thusly engaged under contract with the city to install 38 ceiling light fixtures and the conduits and junction boxes therefor in the tunnel running under the concrete foundation of the arena floor and a recessed drop ceiling which leads to the outside area above Market Street. Ermco was the principal electrical contractor for the project. Ermco's employees, represented by Local 481, had been performing all of the inside electrical work on the project pursuant to a contract between Ermco and the city. 432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The question of the performance of the dispute work first arose in June 1974 when IPALCO employees initially began preparation for the instal- lation of the recessed ceiling lights. At that time, Local 481 petitioned the parent International Union for a determination as to whether members of Local 481, representing journeyman inside wiremen, or Local 1395, representing electrical linemen, should perform the disputed work. After a consultation with representatives of Local 481 and Local 1395 and an onsite inspection, the International representative awarded the installation of the overhead lights and the related electrical wiring to the inside wiremen represented by Local 481. Thereafter, Local 1395 informed IPALCO that it did not claim the work, but IPALCO informed the International representative that its employees would nevertheless perform the installation of the fixtures and related- materials. Nothing was done to resume performance of the disputed work until October 1974. On October 16, IPALCO employees began to bring materials for the installation of the overhead fixtures to the jobsite and the installation work began on October 17. On that day, the Local 481 members employed by Ermco picketed the jobsite with signs saying that electrical work on the.project was not being performed by its members. The picketing caused virtually all of the employees of the other contractors and subcontrac- tors on the project to walk off their jobs. Pursuant to a settlement agreement between the Charging Parties herein and Local 481 that a hearing would be held before the Board for determination of the instant dispute," the pickets were removed on October 25, 1974. Thereafter, all of the employees who had walked off their jobs returned to work without further incident. IPALCO's employees, who had continued to work during the picketing, completed the disputed work on or about November 7, 1974. C. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed to the determina- tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that (1) reasonable cause exists to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4XD) has occurred, and (2) an agreed-upon method binding all parties does not exist for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. As to the existence of reasonable cause, the evidence discloses that Local 481 members walked off their jobs and picketed the Market Square Arena jobsite with signs indicating that electrical work on the project was not being performed by its members. I See Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers (High Point Sprinkler Company ofAltanta, 191 NLRB 603 (1971); Laborers' Internation- al Union of North America, Local 935, AFL-CIO (Campbell Construction Co., Inc.), 194 NLRB 367 (1971). This picketing constituted a demand to reassign the disputed work from employees of IPALCO, who were represented by Local 1395, to Local 481 members employed by Ermco. The fact that Local 1395 disclaimed the disputed work does not prevent the Board from making an award of the work because Local 1395 members did, in fact, perform and complete the disputed work subsequent to the disclaimer.' Accordingly, we find reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(bX4)(D)2 has occurred. The record contains no evidence of an agreed-upon method for resolving the dispute herein that would be binding on all parties. Accordingly, the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. D. Contentions of the Parties Local 481 contends that the award of the disputed work to employees represented by it is supported by industry and area practice, the superior skills and experience of Local 481 members in performing the work, increased efficiency, and safety attendent upon their performing the disputed work, the existence of an apprenticeship training program operated by Local 481 for preparing its members to perform the disputed work, and the International Union's award of the work in dispute to Local 481 members. As indicated, Local 1395 does not now claim the work. The Charging Parties took no position on the awarding of the work in dispute to either Local. E. Merits of the Dispute As the Board stated in J. A. Jones Construction Company,3 we shall determine the appropriate assignment of the disputed work in each case presented for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act only after taking into account and balancing all relevant factors, including the following: 1. Certification and collective-bargaining contracts Neither Local .481 nor Local 1395 has been certified by the Board as bargaining representative of Ermco's and IPALCO's employees, respectively, for the work in dispute. In addition, although each Local has a written collective-bargaining contract with its respective Employer, neither contract specifically covers the work in dispute. Under these circum- stances, we are unable to conclude that this factor 2 See Local 595, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornametal Iron Workers, AFL (Bethel Corporation), 108 NLRB 823 (1954). s International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company) 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). LOCAL 481, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 433 favors awarding the work in dispute either to Local 481 or to Local 1395. 2. The Employer's assignment and area and industry practice The city of Indianapolis contracted with IPALCO for the performance of the disputed work. However, at the hearing, neither Huber, the general contractor, nor Market Square Associates, the general operator of the project, took any position as to the assignment of work and the city of Indianapolis chose not to appear. Nonetheless, this factor somewhat favors awarding of the work in dispute to employees represented by Local 1395. The record shows that Local 1395 members perform outside line work for IPALCO and perform inside electrical wiring only in buildings and struc- tures owned by IPALCO. On all other buildings and structures, it has been IPALCO's common practice to subcontract inside wiring to firms whose employ- ees are represented by Local 481. In addition, the record shows that Local 1395 members have never in the past installed lighting fixtures which required the type of work, i.e., installation of contacts to control panels and disconnects, as was involved in the work in dispute. On the other hand, the record shows that in Indianapolis and Marion Counties, Indiana, recessed lighting fixtures such as those installed in the drop ceiling at the Market Square Arena project are the type of lighting fixtures commonly installed by electrical contractors whose employees are represent- ed by Local 481. In addition, the record establishes that Local 481 members performed all of the other inside electrical wiring work at the Market Square Arena Project. Accordingly, on the basis of the evidence before us, we find that the area and industry practice favors awarding the work in dispute to employees represented by Local 481. 3. Skills, ability, and training Local 1395 members are electrical linemen who usually do the work of running high tension lines outdoors from generating stations to substations and from utility poles or feeders to buildings or struc- tures. On the other hand, Local 481 members are journeyman inside wiremen who are trained and skilled to perform installation of electrical service after the linemen run the electrical lines to a building. Inside wiremen run the electrical service to the distribution panels for power and/or lighting and install conduits and feeders to take the current from the main panels or subpanels to the final point of utilization, essentially the type of work in dispute herein. In addition, there was uncontroverted testimony that the training requirements for inside wiremen, such as those represented by Local 481, differ from the training requirements for apprentice linemen such as those represented by Local 1395. Thus, the training of linemen is primarily concerned with rigging and is given through correspondence-type education. On the other hand, Local 481 operates an apprentice educational and training program for journeyman wiremen which includes a minimum of 150 hours of course and class training in the municipal electrical code, blueprint reading, electri- cal theory, motor controls, circuits, power factors, lighting circuits, and other problem areas in electrical circuitry. They also study such areas as welding, knot tying, and rigging. In addition to the classroom instruction, the apprentice wireman receives exten- sive on-the-job training under the supervision of experienced journeyman wiremen. Accordingly, based on the record evidence, we find that Local 481 members' superior skills, ability, and training in the installation of inside wiring favor awarding the work in dispute to employees represented by Local 481. 4. Efficiency, economy of operation, and safety The disputed work was performed by Local 1395 members between October 16, 1974, and November 7, 1974, an approximately 3-week period. The record shows that IPALCO used one or two crews of men, which included eight linemen and two supervisors, to perform the work. In contrast, Ermco's president testified that the installation of the 38 light fixtures in question and the related electrical work by its employees would require only approximately 180 hours of work over a 2-week period, utilizing three or four journeyman inside wiremen. Thus, Ermco, whose employees are represented by Local 481, could have completed the work in dispute in approximately one-half the time with one-half the employees that were required by IPALCO employees represented by Local 1395. Accordingly, in view of the uncontradict- ed evidence as to the overall efficiency and cost savings which would have been realized had Local 481 members performed the work in dispute, we fmd that the factors of efficiency and economy of operations favor awarding the work in dispute to employees represented by Local 481. The record also indicates that all electrical installa- tion work performed by Local 481 members em- ployed by Ermco at the Market Square Arena jobsite was inspected for the safety of installation by city inspectors pursuant to the municipal electrical code. 434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the other hand, there is no requirement in the municipal code that electrical work performed by employees of IPALCO be inspected by city officials. Accordingly, we are unable to make a judgment on the safety factor on the basis of the evidence contained in the record other than to conclude that assignment of the work in dispute to employees represented by Local 481 would result in the work being performed in a safe manner. 5. Award by the International Union In June 1974, Local 481 petitioned the parent International Union for a determination as to whether Local 481 members or Local 1395 members should perform the work in dispute . As mentioned previously, the International representative awarded the work to Local 481 but, inasmuch as the award was not binding on all parties , IPALCO ordered its employees to perform the work notwithstanding the award by the International Union. Nevertheless, because the International Union specifically award- ed the work to Local 481, and in respect of the fact that the Charging Parties have taken no position, we find that this factor favors awarding the work in dispute to employees represented by Local 481. Conclusion Upon the entire record in this proceeding and after full consideration of all relevant factors, especially the factors of area and industry practice; the superior skills, abilities, and training of Local 481 members; the efficiency and economy of operations which would have resulted had Local 481 members per- formed the work in dispute; and the award of the work in dispute to Local 481 by the International Union, we conclude that Ermco's employees repre- sented by Local 481 are entitled to the work in dispute, and we shall determine the dispute in their favor. We do not, however, award the work to Local 481 or to its members. DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceeding, the Board hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute: Employees of Ermco Electric, Inc., who are currently represented by Local 481, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the installation of recessed overhead street lights and related electrical work at the Market Square Arena project in Indianapolis, Indiana.