Teamsters Local Union No. 5

474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 5, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America , Ind. and Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Company , Inc. and Road Sprin- kler Fitters Local Union No. 669, United Associa- tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb- ing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO. Case 15-CD-222 September 19, 1975 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Grinnell is a Delaware corporation licensed to do and engaged in the fabrication and installation of fire protection systems in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It was stipulated that during the past 12 months Grinnell has purchased goods and materials in excess of $50,000 from points located outside of the State of Louisiana. We find that Grinnell is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY 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 Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Company, Inc., herein also called the Employer, on May 30, 1975, alleging that General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 5, affi- liated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., herein also referred to as Local 5 or Teamsters, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring Grinnell to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by Teamsters rather than to employees represented by Road Sprinkler Fitters Lo- cal Union No. 669, United Association of Journey- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fit- ting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein also referred to as Road Sprinkler Fitters or Local 669. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Ed- ward J. Fonti on July 17 and 18, 1975. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full op- portunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the is- sues. Thereafter, the Employer and Local 5 filed briefs which have been duly considered. 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 of the parties, the Board makes the following findings: II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It was stipulated and we find that Teamsters Local 5 and Road Sprinkler Fitters Local 669 are labor or- ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute After contracting with Milton Womack, Inc., the general contractor, to design and install a sprinkler system at the Cortana Mall in Baton Rouge, Louisi- ana, Grinnell began work on March 2, 1975. The in- stallation process continued until May 23, 1975, when a truckload of materials for Grinnell arrived at the mall. Although three members of Local 669 were present to unload the truck, the Teamsters job stew- ard advised the Employer's area foreman, Billie De- laney, that members of Local 5 would unload the vehicle. As Delany prepared to unload the truck using members of Local 669, he was confronted by Earl Jones of Local 5 and approximately 20 men. Jones then informed Delaney that the teamsters would un- load the truck. Upon his return from contacting Grinnell's management and law enforcement offi- cials, Delaney discovered that Jones and members of Local 5 had already unloaded the truck. According to Delaney's testimony, he made no effort to halt the unloading by the teamsters, "Because I figured 20 against 2, we couldn't stop them and they'd of throwed us off that truck if we got up on it." This incident resulted in the Employer filing the instant charge with the Board. At that time, Local 5 gave the Board written assurance that it would re- frain from interfering with the Employer's work as- signments. On June 19, 1975, Delaney arrived at the jobsite in a pickup truck with tools on it. Tommy Craig, the 220 NLRB No. 116 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 5 475 new job steward for Local 5, soon informed him that the teamsters would have to remove the tools from the truck. Delaney responded that according to the NLRB, Local 5 "wasn't supposed to fool with" the Employer until after the hearing. He further advised Craig that a Condor Lift would arrive by truck mo- mentarily. Craig said the teamsters would also un- load this vehicle. After several phone calls, Jones arrived at the job- site to read a letter from Local 5's attorney to the Board regarding the agreement that the Teamsters would refrain from interfering with the Employer's operations until the dispute had been adjudicated. The teamsters then permitted Local 669 to unload both the pickup truck and the Condor Lift, which had arrived in the interim . The following morning unidentified pickets were at a project gate protesting the use of nonunion labor by another subcontractor at the mall. As a result, the job was shut down for several weeks. Womack finally called a meeting of all subcontrac- tors on June 26. Due to the continuing disputes be- tween Local 5 and various subcontractors, Womack requested Don Boyd, the district manager for the Employer, to permit the teamsters to unload Grinnell's materials. When Boyd did not agree to such action, Womack told him to stay off the job until further notice. The Employer has not been on the jobsite since that date. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute is limited to the initial unload- ing of materials brought to the jobsite by trucks. Ac- cording to the Employer, such materials include pipe, pipe fabrications, and component parts of fire pro- tection systems to be installed by Grinnell at the in- stallation site. C. The Contention of the Parties Respondent Local 5 argues that the established past practice in the area involved herein requires as- signment of the disputed work to its members. In this connection , the Teamsters asserts the disputed work could be done equally well by both Unions. Respondent also argues that a 1967 agreement be- tween Local 5 and Plumbers Local Union No. 198, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, is dispositive of the dis- pute. Such agreement gives to Local 5 the initial hand unloading and checking off of all materials. The Employer contends that the Teamsters violat- ed Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by seeking to compel the assignment of the disputed work to members of Local 5. The Employer also submits that the award of the disputed work to its own employees is appro- priate in view of their possession of the requisite skills, efficiency and economy of operation, the con- tract between Grinnell and the Road Sprinkler Fit- ters, past company practice, and the Employer's as- signment of the work. The position of Local 669 is in agreement with that of the Employer. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed to a determination of a dispute under 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, and that there is no agreed-upon method, which is binding on all parties, for the voluntary adjustment of the dis- pute. The record indicates only two to four men are nec- essary to unload materials for the installation of a fire protection system. When 20 teamsters confront- ed Delaney and his crew of 2 men at the mall con- struction site, it created an inference that Local 5 did not intend to permit the unloading of the vehicle without interference. Delaney's actions in calling the police and his employer relative to the situation indi- cate that he feared the consequences of continuing work with the Local 669 employees of Grinnell. Moreover, as a consequence of the Employer's stead- fast refusal to give the disputed work to the team- sters, the general contractors forced the Company off the job. In a jurisdictional context, the Board is not charged with finding that a violation did in fact oc- cur, but only that there is reasonable cause to believe that there has been a violation. On the facts herein, and without ruling on the credibility of testimony that is in issue, we find there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. In addition, none of the parties has agreed to be bound by determinations of the Impartial Jurisdic- tional Disputes Board or any alternative method for voluntary adjustment of this dispute. It is therefore clear that at the time of the instant dispute there did not exist any agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute to which all parties were bound. Accordingly, we find that the matter is prop- erly before the Board for determination under Sec- tion 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board make an affirmative award of the disputed work af- 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ter giving due consideration to various relevant fac- tors. As the Board has stated, the determination in a jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment based on commonsense and experience in weighing these factors.' The following factors are relevant in making a determination of the dispute before us. 1. Board certifications and relevant collective-bargaining agreements Neither of the labor organizations concerned here- in has been certified by the Board as the collective- bargaining representative for a unit of the Employer's employees. As a member of a multiemployer bargaining unit, Grinnell contends that article 14 of the current col- lective-bargaining agreement between the National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Association, Inc., and the Road Sprinkler Fitters requires assign- ment of the disputed work to employees represented by Local 669. According to the testimony adduced at the hearing, members of Local 669 have exclusively handled the disputed work for at least the past 7 or 8 years under a contract substantially identical to that executed on April 1, 1975. In addition, the Employer noted that it has no current collective-bargaining agreement with Local 5. Although the Teamsters has no collective-bargain- ing agreement with the Employer, Local 5 asserts the 1967 contract with Plumbers Local 198 gives it the right to the work in dispute. However, such agree- ment is not determinative of the instant proceeding in view of the Road Sprinkler Fitters lack of partici- pation therein. Accordingly, we find that this factor favors an award of the disputed work to employees represented by Local 669. 2. The Employer's assignment and past practice Although Local 5 alleges that its members have performed the work in dispute for Grinnell on sever- al occasions, the Employer's area foreman testified that Local 669 has exclusively handled such work during the past 7 or 8 years. In this connection, Grin- nell presented an inclusive listing of jobs completed since 1969. The Employer contends that the Road Sprinkler Fitters unloaded materials off the trucks at all of the jobs cited. It is also clear that the Employer wishes to continue this assignment of the work. Thus, we find that this factor favors award of the 1 N L R B v. Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia Broad- casting System], 364 U S 573 (1961); International Association of Machinists, Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Constuction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962) work in dispute to employees represented by Local 669. 3. Area and industry practice The record indicates that the industry practice is to use members of the Road Sprinkler Fitters to unload and check in materials for installation of fire protec- tion systems. The district superintendent for a com- petitor of Grinnell testified that he knows of no claim by any union other than Local 669 for the disputed work in his area, which includes New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Mobile, Alabama; south- ern Mississippi; and the Florida Panhandle. A. T. Lyde, the Employer's district superintendent, said that members of Local 669 have always unloaded the pipe and pipe fabrications during his 36 years in the industry. Area practice among the other building trades is generally to permit Local 5 to hand unload and check off materials arriving at the jobsite. Although the teamsters have also received some of the work in dispute in the Baton Rouge area here involved, the Board finds that those companies installing sprinkler systems that have permitted Local 5 to handle these functions have done so in order to avert the possibili- ty of a shutdown at the jobsite. In several instances, the teamsters were paid for work they did not per- form. Consequently, we find that industry practice fa- vors an award of the work in dispute to employees represented by Local 669, while area practice is mixed and favors an award to neither of the compet- ing groups of employees. 4. Relative skills, efficiency, and economy of operations The Employer strongly favors an award of the work to its employees represented by Local 669 be- cause of their experience in performing the disputed work and the resulting efficiency and economy of operation. In this connection, Local 669 apprentices undergo a 5-year training program which includes instruction in the reading of blueprints and identification of the color coding system used in the industry to identify fabrications and components. When members of Lo- cal 5 unload the pipe and fabrications in a random manner, the record shows that the Road Sprinkler Fitters must then sort the materials by blueprints ac- cording to sequence and area of installation. Grinnell desires to avoid such additional handling by system- atically unloading the materials to expedite the in- stallation process. Moreover, the teamsters perform- TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 5 ing this work would receive wages for at least 4 hours' work even though the job normally requires less time. Accordingly, we find that this factor favors award of the work in dispute to employees represented by Local 669. Conclusion Upon consideration of all relevant factors, we con- clude that the Employer's employees who are repre- sented by Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, United Association of Journeymen and Appren- tices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, are enti- tled to the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion based on the Employer's current collective-bargain- ing relationships ; the Employer's assignment of the disputed work to these employees and the fact that the assignment is consistent with the Employer's practice; the fact that employees represented by Lo- cal 669 possess the requisite skills to perform the work; and the fact that such an assignment will result in greater efficiency and economy of operations. Ac- cordingly, we shall determine the dispute before us by awarding the work in dispute to those employees represented by Local 669, but not to that Union or its members. We find that Teamsters Local No. 5 is not entitled, by means proscribed under Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require the Employ- er to assign the disputed work to employees repre- sented by it. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor 477 Relations Act, as amended, and on the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this pro- ceeding the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees of Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Company, Inc., who are represented by Road Sprin- kler Fitters Local Union No. 669, United Associa- tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work involved in the initial unloading of materials brought to the jobsite by trucks. 2. General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 5, affiliated with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Ind., is not enti- tled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Company, Inc., to assign the disputed work described in paragraph 1 of this Determination of Dispute to employees represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, General Truck Driv- ers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 5, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., shall notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Company, Inc., by means proscribed by Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the above-described disput- ed work to employees represented by it rather than to employees represented by Road Sprinkler Fitters Lo- cal Union No. 669, United Association of Journey- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fit- ting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO.