Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 11

66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 11 and Pierce- King -Joint Venture and Wood , Wire & Metal Lathers International Union , Local 62 . Case 15- CD-197 March 25, 1975 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges. filed on February 19, 1974, by Pierce-King Joint Venture (herein called the Employer or Pierce- King), alleging that Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 11 (herein called the SMW or the Respondent) had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the assignment of certain work described be- low to employees represented by the SMW rather than to employees of Pierce-King represented by Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers International Union, Local 62 (herein called the Lathers). A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Armin J. Moeller, Jr., on April 29 and 30, 1974. The Employer and the Respondent appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bear- ing on the issues. Thereafter, the Employer and the Respondent 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 made by the Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, including the briefs, the Board makes the following findings: I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer, a joint venture consisting of B. E. King & Sons, Inc., a Louisiana corporation, and Pierce Lathing Co., a California corporation, has its principal office and place of business in New Orleans, Louisiana, and operates in the construction industry where it is engaged in the erection and installation of drywall, lathing, plastering, and fireproofing. The parties stipulated that the Employer annually purchases and receives goods and materials, valued in excess of $50,000, directly from points outside the State of Louisiana. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce and it will effec- tuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties agree that the SMW and the Lathers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute Initially, Pierce Lathing Co. alone was under con- tract with the general contractors, the joint venture of Huber, Hunt & Nichols and Blount Bros. Corp. (herein called the general contractor of Huber-Blount) to per- form the drywall, lathing, plastering, and fireproofing work on the project known as the Louisiana Super- dome in New Orleans. Pursuant to the subcontract, a major portion of the work to be performed involved the construction of the large air return and supply plenums as part of the air handling system. Drywall was the material specified. This process involved the installa- tion of structural steel, 16-gauge studs as the framing or support for the drywall. In early November 1972, the Pierce-King Joint Venture was formed and, in a letter dated November 15, 1972, the Employer assigned the erection of all drywall work, including-the metal framing, to the Lathers "as per contract signed between the [Lathers] and the New Orleans Lathing and Plas- tering Contractors Association [herein called the NOLPCA]." At that time B. E. King & Sons, Inc., as a member of the employer association, was a party to the Lathers bargaining agreement. In March 1973, after the general contractor formally approved the Pierce-King Joint Venture the Employer executed the Lathers' agreement. The Employer also signed, or stipulated to, two other craft agreements to which B. E. King & Sons, Inc. was already a party. One of these latter agreements was with the Mason's, Plasterer's and Lather's Tenders Local No. 153 Union (herein called the Hod Carriers). On April 26, Sidney LeBlanc, a business agent for the SMW, approached the Employer's project manager, Gene Doss, at the jobsite and stated that the air plenum work belonged to the SMW. Doss replied that the work was for lathers and that it had already been assigned to Pierce-King's employees, who were represented by the Lathers. The meeting ended with LeBlanc stating that he would call Mark Branigan, the Lathers business manager. Four days later, LeBlanc and Branigan met with Doss. In response to LeBlanc's claim that the work belonged to sheet metal workers, Branigan replied that the work had been assigned to lathers, showed LeBlanc the Employer's letter of 217 NLRB No. 6 SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 11 67 November 1972, and said that he would not relinquish the assignment. LeBlanc replied that he would take the matter to the Joint Board (i.e., the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes). When asked, Branigan and Doss told LeBlanc that they had no objection. On May 17, LeBlanc and Brani- gan, accompanied by other representatives from the two Unions, met in Doss' field office. After they had asserted their respective claims , LeBlanc stated that he intended to take the dispute to the Joint Board and asked if the Lathers agents had any objections. They had none. According to LeBlanc , Doss said he had no objection either; Doss testified that he probably said something to that effect, adding that "I didn't think what I had to say would make much difference any- how." Thereafter, International representatives of the SMW and the Lathers prepared their respective argu- ments to the Impartial Board (i.e., the Joint Board's successor as of June 1 ). In mid-June, the chairman of the Impartial Board requested certain information about the job from the Employer and Huber- Blount. In a reply, dated June 18, the Employer set forth the information requested and stated that the work histori- cally was performed by lathers and that it came within the work jurisdiction of the Lathers Union, as provided in the Employer's bargaining agreement, and that the assignment had been made on that basis. On June 28, the Impartial Board awarded the disputed work to the SMW. Thereafter, LeBlanc called Doss and asked if he would agree to sign the SMW's bargaining agreement. Doss refused, explaining that he had no authority to bargain for Pierce-King. In September, Doss and SMW Vice President Joe Maggio met with Larry King, Jr., the Employer's vice president, to discuss the possibility of using a composite crew of lathers and sheet-metal workers on the air plenum work. Apparently, Branigan of the Lathers had earlier approved of the arrangement, but he also questioned the sheet-metal workers' qualifi- cations. King voiced the same concern when he opened the 15-minute meeting and stated that production would suffer and, therefore, insisted that all composite crew members be paid according to the lathers' low wage scale and that all work be supervised closely by foremen of the Employer's own choosing. Doss also challenged the sheet-metal workers' skills. Maggio told them that if the SMW could not furnish qualified work- men the SMW would use the Employer's lathers to perform the work. The meeting ended without an agreement on the composite crew . Maggio reported the results of his meeting with SMW Agent Stanley Gaudet who rejected the plan. Thereafter, Gaudet telephoned Doss on a monthly basis to ask when the air plenum work would begin. Doss explained that it would be after the roof was erected, and continued to question the SMW's ability to furnish workmen skilled in per- forming the air plenum work. In November, LeBlanc and Gaudet approached Robert Morgan, project manager for Huber-Blount, and asked if he knew about the Impartial Board's award. Morgan replied that he did, and that the SMW should deal directly with Pierce-King. However, in January 1974, Gaudet called Morgan to ask when Pierce-King would begin work on the air plenums, add- ing that if the sheet-metal workers did not get the work there "would certainly be trouble in the Superdome." On February 13, SMW Official Mike Turcotte learned that Pierce-King was scheduled to begin the air plenum work on the following day . He immediately told Morgan that if the sheet-metal workers did not do the work "there would be a lot of trouble." Asked if this was a "threat," Turcotte replied, "No, there would just be a lot of trouble. This is sheet metal work . . . ." Early the next day, the Employer began work on the air plenums with its employees . Soon after 8 o'clock the employees of two other subcontractors represented by the SMW walked off the project and did not return that day. Shortly after 6 o'clock the following morning, Febru- ary 15, pickets were stationed at each of the eight gates to the Superdome project carrying signs bearing the following legend: PIERCE-KING (A JOINT VENTURE) REFUSES TO ABIDE BY THE DECISION OF THE IMPARTIAL JURISDICTIONAL OF THE DISPUTE BOARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SHEET METAL LOCAL #I I AFFILIATED WITH SOUTHEASTERN LA BLDG & CONST TRADE COUNCIL NO OTHER EMPLOYER INVOLVEDI Some 850 skilled craftsmen, employed by the 30 sub- contractors on the Superdome project, refused to go to work. After several unsuccessful attempts, Morgan fi- nally reached Gaudet by telephone. When asked "what the problem was," Gaudet answered, "the work be- longed to sheet metal and we was doing it with metal lathers and plasterers." In his testimony, Gaudet re- I Error in onginal. 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD called Morgan asking, "How do I get these pickets down?" and his replying, "Stop the work in question or . take the lathers off of this work." On Saturday, February 16, the Employer, through its attorney, sent a telegram to the SMW advising that it had stopped work on the air plenums. When Morgan arrived at work on Monday, February 18, the pickets were still on the jobsite. Thereafter, Morgan contacted Gaudet who explained that he had just received the telegram and that the pickets would be removed im- mediately, and they were. B. The Work in Dispute The work here in dispute is the construction of -air supply and return plenums, as part of the air-handling system on the Superdome, which requires the installa- tion of drywall and the structural framing, consisting of 16-gauge metal studs. C. The Contentions of the Parties The Respondent contends that the Board is without jurisdiction to determine the merits of this dispute un- der Section 10(k) of the Act since the Employer by various collective-bargaining agreements, and the Lathers and the SMW as well, has agreed upon a method or methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. The Respondent also asserts that, irrespective of any contractual commitment, the parties agreed to submit to the Impartial Board and abide by its award. Moreover, the Respondent contends that the Lathers withdrew its claim to the work in dispute. Accordingly, the Respondent contends that the notice of hearing must be quashed. Alternatively, the Respondent con- tends that the disputed work should be assigned to employees represented by it on the basis of the instant and previous decisions of the Impartial Board and the Joint Board, and certain other factors normally consid- ered by the Board in determining these disputes. The Employer, on the other hand, contends that the dispute is properly before the Board because there is no method for voluntary settlement to which all the neces- sary parties are bound. The Employer maintains that the Lathers did not withdraw its claim to the disputed work and the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) by making threatening statements and engaging in picketing for a proscribed object. Finally, the Employer asserts that a determination of this dispute in favor of its own employees, represented by the Lathers, -is ap- propriate in view of the- contract with the Lathers, company and area practice,-possession by the lathers of the requisite skills, efficiency and economy of opera- tion, and the Employer's assignment of the work. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determination of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that (1) there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and (2) the parties have not agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. As to (1) above, it is virtually conceded that on sev- eral occasions representatives, agents, and officials of the SMW stated that there would be "trouble" on the job if the disputed work were not reassigned to sheet- metal workers, that the last such statement was made immediately prior to the commencement of picketing by the SMW, that the picketing occurred because the work had not been reassigned to sheet-metal workers, and, finally, that the picketing ceased once the Em- ployer promised either to "stop the work in question or .. . take the lathers off this work." It is abundantly clear to us that this conduct was in support of the SMW's demand that Pierce-King assign the disputed work to employees represented by the SMW's conduct violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. With respect to (2) above, the Respondent advanced several arguments: 1. As shown, in 1971, B. E. King & Sons executed a bargaining agreement with the Hod Carriers. Later, the Employer became a party to this agreement. The Hod Carriers contract incorporated a so-called master agreement negotiated by the New Orleans Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America (herein called the NOAGC), and Southeastern Louisiana La- borers' District Council (herein called the District Council), which represented, among other unions, the SMW and the Hod Carriers, but not the Lathers. Both agreements were due to expire in 1974. In pertinent part, the master agreement provides that "members of the [NOAGC] signatory hereto": Agree that during the term of this Agreement they will be bound by any procedure or method for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes which may be agreed upon by the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, and the Associ- ated General Contractors of America during the period such method or procedure continues to be approved by both of these organizations. Unless and until such approved procedure is es- tablished the following procedure for the settle- ment of jurisdictional disputes shall be adhered to and binding upon all parties signatory to this Agreement. * * SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 11 All parties to the dispute will be bound by the decision of the International Unions with respect to that particular job. On June 1, 1973, the plan creating the Impartial Board came into being. By its terms, the plan binds employees who have "signed a stipulation to the Plan," or "are members of a stipulated association of employ- ers," or, finally, are parties to a bargaining agreement providing for "these procedures herein set forth." It is undisputed that the Employer neither signed the stipulation to the plan nor became a member of a stipu- lated employer association. Therefore, we understand the Respondent to argue that the Employer was bound to the plan solely by virtue of the Hod Carriers contract and the master agreement, which, it is argued, an- ticipated the plan. In the alternative, the Respondent asserts that should we find that the Employer was not bound to the plan it was, at the very least, required to honor "the decision of the International Unions [i.e., the Lathers and the SMW] with respect to [the dispute]," as provided in the master agreement. We find no merit in these contentions for a number of reasons. Thus, the Board has consistently interpreted Section 10(k) to mean that the employer making the work assignment and the rival unions claiming the work comprise the "parties to the dispute," and that all must approve and enter into a voluntary adjustment procedure in order to preclude a hearing and determi- nation pursuant to that section.' The Respondent recognizes this principle. Yet we look in vain to find any evidence that all of the parties to the instant dispute entered into such a voluntary agreement. Initially, the Respondent's reliance on the Hod Carriers agreement is misplaced because the union is not a party to this dispute and, by the terms of that contract, any commit- ment to honor the master agreement is expressly con- fined to the "parties"; namely, the Employer and the Hod Carriers. See Plumbers and Steamfltters Local Union No. 157 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus- try of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (Curry Construction Company), 191 NLRB 302 (1971). Also, we note that the Employer's contract with the Lathers makes no mention of the master agreement for good reason because the Lathers was neither signatory to that agreement nor, as far as the record reveals, a mem- ber of the District Council. And, as shown above, the Employer had no bargaining agreement with the SMW. Our conclusion that the master agreement is only bind- 2 N.L.R.B. v. Plasterers' Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association AFL-CIO [Southwestern Con- struction Co.], 404 U.S. 116 (1971); Lathers Union Local 104, The Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International Union, AFL-CIO (The Blaine Petty Company, 186 NLRB 365 (1970); Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers'Inter- national Union ofAmerica, Local No. 1, AFL-CIO (Lembke Construction Company of Colorado, Inc.), 194 NLRB 469 (1971). 69 ing upon the Employer and the Hod Carriers, and not the other parties of this dispute, is further reinforced by the fact that that agreement purports to bind only "members of the, [NOAGC] signatory hereto," and it is undisputed that neither the Employer nor NOLPCA ever became a member of the NOAGC. From the foregoing, it is abundantly clear to us that with respect to this jurisdictional dispute the Employer was not bound by the master agreement and, therefore, was not required either to follow the award of the Impartial Board or to adhere to the "decision of the International Union." 2. In the May 17, 1973, meeting with the Lathers representatives and Pierce-King Project Manager Doss, an SMW agent, LeBlanc, stated that he would take the dispute to the National Joint Board and asked if the others had any objection. The Lathers had none, and Doss voiced no objection. Later, in June, the chair- man of the Impartial Board sent letters to both Huber- Blount and Pierce Lathing Co. requesting certain infor- mation pertaining to the disputed work. Larry King, Sr., president of B. E. King & Sons, first received the Impartial Board's letter as an attachment to a letter from the general contractor asking that he furnish the information requested. As related above, King sent 'his letter, dated June 18, to the Impartial Board setting forth certain background data and asserting the reasons for the assignment. Following the Impartial Board's decision, there was some discussion about using a com- posite crew of lathers and sheet-metal workers. Later SMW Agent Gaudet telephoned Doss periodically to inquire when the plenum work was to begin and, to assure Doss that the SMW had qualified workmen. The Respondent contends that the foregoing con- duct manifests the Employer's agreement to submit to the Impartial Board and abide by its award. We disa- gree. (a) When considered in light of the surrounding cir- cumstances, Doss' failure to object to the SMW's sub- mission to the Impartial Board because it "wouldn't make much difference anyhow" is equivocal, and sug- gests a number of inconsequential possibilities, includ- ing his sense of futility in trying to convince the SMW that Pierce-King had long since decided to use its own lathing employees. More important, it is conceded that Doss had no authority to bargain for Pierce-King or bind it to such a commitment. (b) As for the Employer's letter to the Impartial Board, Larry King, Sr., maintained at the hearing that he was only complying with the requests from both the Impartial Board and Huber-Blount and, although he felt that his letter might possibly aid the Lathers in presenting its case, he did not consider the Employer a party to the Impartial Board's proceeding or in any way bound by its decision. In our view, this effort to 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cooperate with the Impartial Board and the general contractor is not synonymous with submission to it. Painters and Drywall Finishers, Local No. 79,- affiliated with International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (Richard O'Brien Plastering Co., 213 NLRB No. 106 (1974).3 (c) Finally, we do not view the discussion regarding the composite crew as a concession to the SMW that the Employer was willing to abide by the Impartial Board decision and reassign the work to sheet-metal workers. As related above, the Employer was clearly unwilling to make such a concession because of the SMW's inability to furnish qualified, efficient work- men. Indeed, the record reveals that there was no sub- stantive discussion of the award at the meeting. Ac- cording to Larry King, Jr., consideration of the composite crew was triggered by a real concern of SMW-sponsored work stoppage. Moreover, the proposal for using a combined crew of lathers and sheet-metal workers was clearly contrary to the Impar- tial Board's decision awarding all of the work to the latter group. We are left with Doss' several brief tele- phone conversations with Gaudet, which in the main concerned only the scheduling of work on the air ple- nums, and whether the SMW was able to furnish quali- fied workmen. We find no evidence that Doss related any charge in the Employer's position that it would not follow the Impartial Board's decision. Even according to Gaudet's somewhat conflicting testimony, Doss, who had no authority in the matter anyway, at most indicated on only one occasion that he could use one sheet-metal worker. 3. At various times after the work was assigned to the Lathers its International president, Kenneth Edwards, and business manager, Mark Branigan, expressed some reluctance to continuing to claim the work ostensibly because of the Impartial Board's decision. Thus, shortly after the Impartial Board's decision, Edwards told Larry King, Sr., that he did not know whether the Lathers would still claim the work. In addition, Brani- 3 Our dissenting colleague finds that the Employer, through Doss, twice, on April 30 and May 17, acquiesced in the SMW's decision to submit the dispute to the Joint Board, and "m conformance with their agreement" filed certain information, some of which supported the Lathers In this regard, we note as stated, Doss had made the Employer's position regarding assign- ment to the disputed work quite clear at the April 26 meeting and there is no showing that at that time, or thereafter, Doss represented that the Em- ployer's commitment, including a bargaining agreement with the Lathers, had changed. Moreover, it is undisputed that Doss possessed no authority to bind the Employer in such matters This is the state of the record before us If, under these circumstances, the SMW chose to interpret Doss' failure to object as both an act binding upon the Employer and as an expression of the Employer's willingness to submit to, and be bound by, amaward of either the Joint or Impartial Boards, it did so at its own peril. In the absence of such an agreement binding upon the parties we cannot interpret the Employer's response to requests for information, in large part prodded along by the general contractor, as anything more than a effort to cooperate with the Impartial Board and the general contractor. gan was apparently instrumental in initiating discus- sion about the use of a composite crew. The Respondent argues that these circumstances compel a finding that the Lathers had relinquished its claim to the work. We disagree. At no time did the Lathers actually abandon its claim. At most, all that is shown is that the matter was under consideration and that possibly some accommodation could be reached in order to avoid the confrontation which later occurred. Finally, it is undisputed that, in February 1974, Ed- wards told King that the Lathers still claimed the work, reaffirming that he "would man the jurisdiction [and] would man the job with lathers." In sum, we conclude that the Respondent has failed to show that the Employer agreed to submit to and be bound by the Impartial Board's award or that the Lath- ers abandoned all claim to the work for its members. 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 various relevant factors. As the Board has stated, the determination in a jurisdic- tional dispute case is an act of judgment based on com- monsense and experience in weighing these factors.4 The following factors are, relevant to making a determi- nation of the dispute before us. 1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements Neither of the labor organizations involved herein has been certified by the Board. However, B. E. King & Sons has, since it was formed in 1945, maintained collective-bargaining relations with the Lathers and has been a party to successive agreements with the Union. Pierce Lathing Co.'s collective -bargaining rela- tions with the Lathers is not revealed in the record of this case. But, as a participant in the joint venture, Pierce Lathing Co. is currently a party to the Lathers contract, which covers the employees who have been performing the disputed work. That contract makes specific reference to, the erection of drywall and sup porting metal studs of various kinds. The Employer has no employees represented by the SMW, and has never had collective-bargaining agreements with that Union. Accordingly, we find that the contractual relationship between the Employer and the Lathers favors the Lath- ers. 4 N.LR.B. v. Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia Broadcasting System], 364 U S. 573 (1961); International As- sociation ofMachinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 11 71 N 2. Company and area practice As the Superdome project is the first major endeavor for the Employer, it is necessary to consider the past practice of B. E. King & Sons, in the New Orleans area. Metal studs have only been used in the building busi- ness in New Orleans area for approximately 15 years. Until 8 years ago, the installation and erection of dry- wall, or gypsum board, and metal studs were assigned to carpenters. However, pursuant to a so-called status quo agreement between the Carpenters union and the Lathers in the mid-1960's the following accommoda- tion was reached: If a contractor has a bargaining agreement with the Lathers alone, the erection of dry- wall and metal studs is assigned to lathers and, con- versely, if a contractor has an agreement with the Car- penters union alone, the work is assigned to carpenters. B. E. King & Sons is one of only four companies in the New Orleans area which performs this work. All four companies are members of NOLPCA and employ only lathers. Therefore, virtually all of the commercial work in New Orleans is performed by employees represented by the Lathers and is covered by that Union's contract. The sheet-metal workers, on the other hand, have sel- dom or never performed this type of work, and the SMW representative, Gaudet, could not recall ever rem ferring a sheet-metal worker to erect drywall and metal studs. Clearly, area practice and, to a substantial ex- tent, company practice favor the Lathers. puted work. Because of this efficiency factor the Em- ployer maintains that employing sheet-metal workers instead of Lathers would cost it about $400,000 more to perform the disputed work. This sum represents approximately 14 percent of its contract with Huber- Blount. Thus, the Employer estimates that a journey- man sheet-metal worker would be only 25 percent as efficient as a journeyman lather which would result in 1,500 or 1,600 total man-days of lathers' work versus approximately 5,000 man-days of sheet-metal workers' work. We conclude that the factors of skill, efficiency, and economy of operations strongly favor award of the dis- puted work to the employees represented by the Lath- ers. 4. The Impartial Board award Although we do not consider the Impartial Board award of the work binding on the Employer, we do consider it as a factor in determining the proper assign- ment on the work in dispute. However, in view of all the circumstances, we are of the-opinion that the Im- partial Board award should not be given controlling weight herein. In reading this result, we have also con- sidered other awards introduced into evidence by the SMW. However, we note that none of these awards involves any of the parties to this dispute other than the SMW. - 3. Skills, efficiency, and economy of operation There is substantial agreement that the construction of air supply and return plenums on the magnitude called for on the Superdome project is unique. The Employer contends, however, that the skills required in erecting drywall and metal studs to form air plenums are virtually the same as those required in erecting walls and ceilings in large buildings, which has been, for at least 8 years, the work of lathers. It is argued that these skills have been first acquired in the Lathers 2- year apprenticeship programs where as many as 300 of the 416 hours spent in class are devoted to working with drywall, and an additional 100 hours are spent on metal lathing which includes the use of metal studs. The Respondent contends that the sheet-metal workers possess skills equal to those of the lathers and are espe- cially experienced in the construction of air ducts, us- ing many different materials, including metal studs. While the SMW's apprenticeship program does not include the use of drywall, the sheet-metal workers do at least occasionally use that building material, utiliz- ing many of the tools commonly used by the lathers. The Employer contends that because of their pecul- iar skills and experience the lathers are more efficient than the sheet-metal workers in performing the dis- 5. Employer's- assignment of work We find that the Employer's assignment of the dis- puted work to employees represented by the Lathers was based on sound business considerations, including present and previous bargaining relationships, com- pany and area practice, skill, efficiency, and economy of operations. Conclusions Upon the record as a whole, and after full considera- tion of all relevant factors involved, we conclude that the Employer's employees who are represented by the Lathers are entitled to the work in dispute. In reaching this conclusion, we have particularly relied on the Em- ployer's assigment of the work to its employees; the fact that his assignment is consistent with past area practice and the Employer's collective-bargaining agreement with the Lathers; the fact that the Lathers-represented employees possess the requisite skills to perform the work; and the efficiency and economy of operations which result from such assignment. We shall, there- fore, determine the dispute before us by awarding the work involved herein to those employees represented by the Lathers, but not to that Union or its members. 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Scope of Award The Employer requests a broad work award, con- tending that it is necessary to avoid similar disputes which are likely to occur in the future at other con- struction sites on which it is performing drywall work. However, we do not find the record evidence herein sufficient to establish a pattern of misconduct sugges- tive of a likelihood that this dispute will extend to other jobsites or recur in the future. Accordingly, we do not believe that the broad order requested by the Employer is appropriate at: this time and, therefore, the determi- nation herein shall apply only to the Superdome pro- ject. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceed- ing, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees of Pierce-King Joint Venture repre- sented by Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers International Union, Local 62, are entitled to perform the work of installing drywall and metal studs in constructing the air supply and return plenums of the Superdome pro- ject in New Orleans, Louisiana. 2. Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 11 is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require the assignment of the above work to its members or to employees it represents. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 11 shall notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, whether it will refrain from forc- ing or requiring, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, the assignment of the work in dispute to employees represented by Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 11, rather than to employees represented by Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers Interna- tional Union, Local 62. MEMBER FANNING, dissenting: I would quash the notice of hearing in this case. It seems clear to me from the -record that the parties to this dispute have utilized a voluntary method for the resolution of their differences and that that method has, in fact, resulted in an award to the Respondent Union. As set forth in the majority decision on April 26, and again on May 17, 1973, LeBlanc, Respondent's busi- ness agent, meeting with the representatives of the Lathers and the Employers, informed them that he would take their jurisdictional dispute to the Joint Board and specifically asked if either of them had any objections. Both stated that they had no objection. Thereafter, in conformance with their agreement, , In- ternational representatives of both Unions submitted their arguments to the Joint Board. The Employer, on request, submitted job information and included in its argument that the disputed work belonged to the lath- ers. On June 28 the Joint Board awarded the work to the Respondent Union. In my opinion, the above evidence satisfies the statu- tory criterion for the voluntary adjustment of a juris- dictional dispute. To assert, as the majority does, that Doss, the Employer's project manager at the jobsite, did not have authority to commit the Employer to a voluntary adjustment of a dispute between two unions strains credulity. Whether or not his authority was real, clearly he acted with apparent authority upon which the other parties to the dispute had a right to rely. At no time did the Employer repudiate Doss' voluntary agreement to present the dispute to the Joint Board. Indeed, as indicated above, the Employer voluntarily submitted job information to the Joint Board and set forth its position with respect to the merits of the award. It was only after the Joint Board ruled against the Employer's position and in favor of the Respondent Union that the Employer filed its charge in this case, alleging that this jurisdictional dispute could not be resolved by voluntary means.