Local Union No. 11, Electrical Workers

LOCAL UNION NO. 11, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 397 Local Union No. 11, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO acrd ITT Communi- cations Equipment & Systems Division and Com- munications Workers of America, AFL-CIO.' Cases 21-CD-386 and 21-CD-387 ties, goods valued in excess of $50,000. Accordingly, we fmd that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. April 15, 1975 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO This a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following separate charges filed by ITT Communications Equip- ment & Systems Division, herein called Employer or ITT, alleging that Local Union No. 11, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called IBEW, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain -work to individuals represented by IBEW rather than to employees represented by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called CWA. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hear- ing, Officer Paul D. Flemm on January 15, 1975. All parties, including the Employer, IBEW, and CWA, appeared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.' Thereafter, the Employer and CWA 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 of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings: I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em- ployer is a Delaware corporation engaged in the sale, installation, and repair of private telephone systems and related equipment. The corporation maintains headquarters at 60 Washington Street, Hartford, Con- necticut, and maintains other offices and facilities in various States. Annually, the corporation ships and receives directly across state lines, at its various facili- Name appears as amended at the hearing 2 Although IBEW was afforded the opportunil y at the hearing to present witnesses on its behalf, it declined to do so. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we fmd, that IBEW and CWA are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts Sometime prior to the relevant events herein, the Employer. executed two separate work contracts cover- ing the installation, repair, and maintenance of private telephonic communications equipment and systems, one at the offices of the F. P. Dow Company which were under construction at the World Trade Center office building in Los Angeles, California, and the other at the offices of the Buchalter law firm which were under construction at the Regency Tower office building in Los Angeles, California. The Employer as- signed the work in dispute at both locations to its em- ployees who are covered by a collective-bargaining agreement with CWA in a nationwide bargaining unit. The contract was entered into on May 1, 1970, and was subsequently renegotiated and became effective on Feb- ruary 1, 1973. On the morning of October 11, 1974, shortly after the Employer's employees began installing the system for Dow, IBEW began picketing the World Trade Cen- ter jobsite, causing the construction trade employees working at the site to walk off the job. Edward L. Grimm, an ITT communications technician, testified without contradiction that there were approximately 10 individuals picketing the construction employee en- trances, carrying signs which said, "ITT being unfair to IBEW." He further testified that the signs may have had the word "wages" on them. Shortly after the walk- out, the Employer's communications ,technicians per- forming the installation work were ordered to leave the jobsite by Larry Fisher, the project coordinator for the World Trade Center. As one of the Employer's techni- cians attempted to leave in a company truck, one of the picketers ran to his car and blocked the parking lot exit for 10 minutes. Because of the work stoppage, a repre- sentative of the owners of the World Trade Center informed 'a representative of the Employer that his em- ployees would not be allowed on the World Trade Cen- ter jobsite until the Company gave IBEW what it wanted. On October 12, picketers were again present, and when ITT employees arrived they were instructed 217 NLRB No. 69 398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by the project coordinator to leave. On October 16, the Employer's area operations manager, Ken Dalton, con- tacted IBEW's business agent, Ralph Norrington, and asked if there was any way IBEW would curtail its picketing so that the Employer could meet its contrac- tual obligation to Dow. Dalton testified without con- tradiction that Norrington replied that ITT was taking work away from IBEW members who worked for elec- trical contractors and this was causing a loss of work to IBEW members. Norrington also stated that IBEW had a communications local with people who were qualified to do telephone work and that these people were not getting their share of the interconnect work. On October 21, 1974, the Employer began installing a telephone system for the Buchalter law firm at the Regency Tower building. On October 22, while the Employer's technicians, one of whom was Grimm, were working in the Buchalter suite, they were ap- proached by Aubry and Muscali, employees of another subcontractor on the site, who introduced themselves, said they were with the IBEW, and asked if the em- ployees were in a union. Grimm testified that Muscali and Aubry then said, "ITT was cutting IBEW's throat for the reason that we were taking the job, that they were supposed to be doing, away from them," and Aubry added that IBEW electricians should be doing the communications work. On October 24, when Grimm reported to work at the Regency Tower, a picket line of five individuals was in the parking lot, some of whom were carrying signs similar to those carried at the World Trade Center. Muscali, who was on the picket line, told Grimm that they were picketing because the Employer's technicians were there. Aubry said that the construction trade employees would not go into the building until the communications techni- cians were removed. Grimm began to work but was later directed to the building manager's office where he was instructed to pick up his equipment and leave the building. B. Work in Dispute The work in dispute herein is the installation of com- munications equipment and systems at the offices of F. P. Dow Company in the World Trade Center in Los Angeles, California, and at the offices of the Buchalter law firm in the Regency Tower in Los Angeles, Cali- fornia. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that there is reasonable cause to believe that IBEW has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act, and that the record supports its assignment of the work in dispute to its employees represented by CWA. The Employer cites considerations of area, company, and industry practice, efficiency and economy of operations, skills, and its collective-bargaining agreement with CWA in support of its assignment. In addition, the Employer urges that the Board's order in this proceeding encompass more than the immediate projects. On the merits, CWA's position is essentially the same as that of the Employer. IBEW contends that there is no jurisdictional dis- pute since it does not now have, and did not have at the time of the picketing, any object to secure the work in question from the employees of the Employer repre- sented by CWA, but it does not assert any other object of its picketing. IBEW asserts further that it does not intend to disclaim the work in dispute because to do so assumes that it at one time claimed the work. There- fore, at the hearing it urged the Board to assign the work to CWA and presented no testimony, and it subsequently filed no briefs. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. As set forth above, the record shows that IBEW- picketed the jobsites and interfered with the completion of the disputed work because the Employer refused to assign the work in dispute to its members. IBEW's position, as stated at the time of the picketing, was that ITT was taking work away from IBEW members who work for electrical contractors , and that IBEW mem- bers should be doing the communications systems in- stallation work . Counsel for IBEW declined to disclaim the disputed work because he asserted that there never was a jurisdictional dispute since IBEW never claimed that work. Based on the foregoing undisputed facts and the record as a whole, we find that an object of the IBEW members' picketing was to force or require the -Employer to assign the disputed work to individuals represented by IBEW . Accordingly, we find that rea- sonable cause exists to believe that IBEW violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The Board held in General Building Laborers' Local Union No. 66 of the Laborers' International Union ofNorth America (Georgia-Pacific Corporation), 209 NLRB 611 (1974), and Local Union No. 55, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO (Gilbert L. Phillips, Inc.), 213 NLRB No. 76 (1974), that an effective renunciation of the work in dispute dissolves the jurisdictional dispute . The Board, in those cases, ordered that the notice of hearing be quashed upon finding an effective disclaimer of the work at the situs where the dispute arose and upon finding no evidence from which it could reasonably be inferred that respondent intended to secure the dis- LOCAL UNION NO. 11, ELECTRICAL WORKERS puted work by unlawful means at future jobsites. We' find the above cases inapposite.' In the first place, we are not satisfied that IBEW's position at the time of hearing was in fact a disclaimer of the disputed work let alone an effective one. Thus, counsel for IBEW declined to disclaim the disputed work;' and although this was based on his assertion that IBEW never sought said work, as stated above, the record is to the contrary and clearly establishes that, in October 1974; IBEW picketed the World Trade Center and the Regency Tower with the object of forcing or requiring the Em- ployer to assign the disputed work to employees repre- sented by IBEW.' Secondly, over the last several years, these same International Unions, although dif- ferent locals thereof, have appeared before the Board in dispute over the same type of work at other jobsites of this Employer,' demonstrating a policy on the part of the IBEW's parent International which indicates a con- tinuing dispute. In view of the facts that these same International Unions have previously appeared in dis- putes over the same work at other jobsites of this Em- ployer, that the Employer has an expectation of future work commitments in the southern California area, and that IBEW took no position as to whether it would claim such work in the future, we believe that there is a reasonable likelihood that the dispute will recur.' Based on the record before us, there is at present no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. Under these circumstances, we find that it 3 Member Kennedy dissented with former Chairman Miller in both of those cases to the quashing of the 10(k) proceedings. In their view, there were no effective disclaimers of the work in dispute Member Kennedy agrees in the instant case that the majority opinions in the Georgia-Pacific and Gilbert L. Phillips cases are inapposite 4 Unlike the position taken by IBEW here, the respondents in the Georgia- PacifIc and Gilbert cases contacted the employers prior to the hearing to disclaim the disputed work, and the disclaimers were reiterated at the hear- ings 5 See International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 98 (Inter Communication Services, Inc.), 207 NLRB 689 (1973) In that case, IBEW picket signs at the worksite indicated that the purpose of the picketing was to protest wage standards, and, consequently, IBEW's position at the hear- ing was that it disclaimed the work because its purpose in picketing was to protest wage standards Upon finding that , in spite of the nature of the signs, conversations between IBEW and CWA representatives indicated that the object of the picketing was to secure the disputed work, the Board held that the disclaimer was not valid. 6 Local Union No. 98 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (17T-Communications Equipment and Systems Division), 199 NLRB 496 (1972), Local Union No 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (International Telephone & Telegraph Corpo- ration, Communications Equipment and Systems Division), 191 NLRB 828 (1911); Local No. 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation, Communica- tions Equipment & Systems Division), 197 NLRB 879 (1972). The Board has also heard disputes involving IBEW, CWA, and other employers concerning the performance of the same type of work disputed here. See, e g., Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 9 (Inter Communication Services, Inc.), supra; Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Comtech Telephone Contractors Corporation), 202 NLRB 918 (1973); Local Union No. 474, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Teleci, Inc.), 198 NLRB 221 (1972). 7 Local 299, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO (Metalab Equipment Company), 173 NLRB 1329, 1332 (1968). 399 will effectuate the policies underlying Sections 10(k) and 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act for us to determine the merits of the dispute . Accordingly, we find that this dispute is appropriate for resolution 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 various relevant factors. 1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements Neither of the labor organizations herein involved has been certified as the collective-bargaining represen- tative for a unit of the Employer's employees, nor is there evidence indicating that a Board certification cov- ers the work in dispute. As stated above, the Employer is a party to a nation- wide collective-bargaining agreement with CWA. That contract provides that CWA is the "sole and exclusive bargaining agent for employees of the Company per- forming installation, replacement and maintenance op- erations in the United States or its possessions." In accordance with this agreement, the Employer has as- signed the work in dispute to its employees represented by CWA. The Employer is not, and never has been party to any collective-bargaining agreement with IBEW. We conclude, therefore, that considerations of collective-bargaining history and agreements favor as- signment of the work to employees represented by CWA. 2. Employer, industry, and area practice The record clearly establishes that it is the Em- ployer's consistent practice to assign its own em- ployees, who are represented by CWA, to perform all aspects of the work in dispute on a nationwide basis. The record also indicates that it is the practice of the Pacific Telephone Company and -the General Tele- phone Company, the Employer's two primary competi- tors in the Los Angeles, California, area, to use em- ployees represented by CWA to perform work similar to the disputed work for which the Employer uses its communications technicians . The record also lists a number of other private telephone companies in the southern California area which employ CWA-repre- sented persons to perform telephone installation work. There is no evidence that IBEW members perform any such work. On the basis of the above findings, we con- clude that the employer, industry, and area practice favors assignment of the work in dispute to employees represented by CWA. 400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Skills and training of employees The record clearly establishes that : (1) the Em- ployer's communications technicians possess the neces- sary skills to perform the work in dispute, and (2) journeyman electricians represented by IBEW are not sufficiently skilled to perform the disputed work. The record also indicates that the Employer is satisfied with the performance of the work in dispute by its communi- cations technicians represented by CWA. More specifically, the record shows that the work of the Employer's communications technicians is signifi- cantly different from the work performed by journey- man electricians in terms of training and techniques required. This conclusion is based, in part, on tes- timony disclosing that a fully qualified communica- tions technician has approximately 72 months of for- mal instruction and on-the-job training which is divided into seven preliminary stages! Part of the training includes work with several pieces of communi- cations equipment which are unique to the Employer's operations. Communications technicians must use var- ious pieces of sophisticated electronic testing equip- ment. Journeyman electricians use only a few testing devices, which are of a less sophisticated nature. Whereas a journeyman electrician normally works with cable containing no more than 2 pairs of wires, com- munications technicians must work with cables con- taining up to 900 pairs of fine wires. Accordingly, we find that consideration of the factors of skill and special training favors assignment of the disputed work to the employees of the Employer who are represented by CWA. each customer. The Employer argues that if it were to use the IBEW hiring hall customer's would see different technicians who are unfamiliar with the specific tele- phone system or previous repairs and modifications. Testimony also indicates that the use of IBEW mem- bers would increase the Employer's labor costs, inter alia, because of the man-hours which would be lost training new employees and familiarizing them with the Employer's equipment. We find that factors of both economy and efficiency support an award of the work in dispute to employees represented by CWA. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after full considera- tion of all relevant factors involved, we conclude that the Employer's employees represented by CWA are entitled to perform the work in dispute. This assign- ment is consistent with the collective-bargaining agree- ment between CWA and the Employer; employer, in- dustry, and area practice; the requisite skills and training; and the efficiency and economy of operations. In addition, the Employer has been satisfied with the performance of its employees who are represented by CWA. We conclude on the basis of the above factors that the Employer's assignment should not be changed. Accordingly, we shall determine the dispute before us by awarding the work in dispute to the Employer's employees represented by CWA, but not to that Union or its members. In consequence, we also find that IBEW is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require the Employer to assign the disputed work to employees represented by it. 4. Efficiency and economy of operations The record indicates that an assignment of the work in dispute to IBEW members would result in a substan- tial loss of economy and efficiency to the Employer. More specifically, testimony indicates that, since _ the Employer trains its employees over periods of time in excess of a year and such training includes the use of its own manufactured equipment, continuity of the em- ployee complement is important to the Employer; therefore, the use of IBEW members, hired through the IBEW hiring hall, would cause difficulty. The Em- ployer's contracts with customers include providing repair, maintenance, and modification services.. In providing those services, a regular communications technician develops a rapport with the customer to whom he is assigned, and he also develops an expertise in the peculiarities of the telephone system provided for Scope of Determination The Employer, in its brief, requests that the Board determine the dispute by awarding the disputed work to its own employees and further requests that the Board's determination apply to the geographic jurisdic- tion of IBEW Local Union No. It. In the past, it has been the Board's policy to make an award broad enough to encompass the geographic area in which an employer does business, wherever jurisdiction of the competing unions coincide, in cir- cumstances where there is an indication that the dis- pute is likely to recur.' As the Employer will continue to seek new contracts that include performance of the work in dispute, as IBEW did not effectively disclaim that work and there is no assurance that disputes simi- lar to the one herein will not recur, and in view of the history of such claims by Local 11 and other locals 8 The record shows that approximately 60 percent of the Employer's 9 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 26, communications technicians in the southern California area are fully quali- AFL-CIO (Taylor Woodrow Blitman Construction Corporation), 195 NLRB fied 261, 264 (1972) LOCAL UNION NO. 11, ELECTRICAL WORKERS 401 affiliated with the same parent International Union, we find that the dispute is likely to recur between the parties.10 Therefore, our determination in this case ap- plies to all similar disputes occurring within the Los Angeles, 'California, area whenever the jurisdiction of IBEW Local Union No. 11 coincides with an assign- ment of such work to the Employer's employees. 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 hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees of ITT Communications Equipment & Systems Division who are currently represented by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of installing communica- 10 See Local Union No. 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation, Communications Equipment and Systems Division), 191 NLRB 828, 832 (1971). tions equipment in the offices of the F. P. Dow Com- pany at the World Trade Center, in the offices of the Buchalter law firm at the, Regency Tower, and at the facilities of any other of the Employer's customers in the Los Angeles, California, area whenever the jurisdic- tion of IBEW Local Union No. 11 coincides with an assignment of such work to the Employer's employees. 2. Local Union No. 11, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require ITT Communications Equipment & Systems Division to assign the above work to employees repre- sented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, Local Union No. 11, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Re- gion 21, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the Employer, by means pro- scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to its members rather than to em- ployees represented by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO.