Plumbers Local Union No. 741

944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices all times its picketing was merely for the purpose of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local of seeking compliance with an award issued by the Union No. 741 and The Ashton Company, Inc. Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board of the and Laborers' International Union of North Building and Construction Trades Council of the America, Local No. 479. Case 28-CD-195 AFL-CIO, herein called the IJDB, awarding em- January 7, 1982 ployees represented by Respondent the disputed work, and that the Board's refusal to apply that DECISION AND ORDER award and quash the 10(k) notice of hearing was erroneous as a matter of fact and law. BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND B MEMERS FANNIN, JENIN, ANOn September 21, 1981, counsel for the General ~ZIMMERMAN~~ Counsel filed directly with the Board a motion to Upon a charge filed on June 25, 1980, by The transfer and continue the matter before the Board, Ashton Company, Inc., herein called the Employ- for summary judgment, and to strike denials in Re- er, and duly served on United Association of Jour- spondent's answer. The General Counsel submits, neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pi- in substance, that Respondent is not entitled to a pefitting Industry, Local Union No. 741, herein hearing de novo on issues which where raised and called Respondent or the Plumbers, the General litigated in the underlying 10(k) proceeding, that Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by Respondent's answer admits that Respondent is the Regional Director for Region 28, issued a com- failing and refusing to accede to and abide by the plaint on August 6, 1981, against Respondent, al- Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute in leging that Respondent had engaged in and was en- that proceeding, and that Respondent is seeking to gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce relitigate those issues. The General Counsel further within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) submits that the Board should strike Respondent's and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Re- answer to the extent that it seeks to deny the al- lations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge and leged object of its picketing activities. Subsequent- complaint and notice of hearing before an adminis- ly, on September 28, 1981, the Board issued an trative law judge were duly served on the parties order transferring the proceeding to the Board and to this proceeding. a Notice To Show Cause why the General Coun- With respect to the unfair labor practices, the sel's motions should not be granted. Respondent complaint alleges in substance that Respondent vio- thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show lated the Act by picketing the Employer's Ameri- Cause and a Motion for Summary Judgment in can Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) favor of Respondent and memorandum in support Mission Mine Unit jobsite from about May to of that motion. In its response, Respondent essen- about August 7, 1980, with an object of forcing or tially reiterates its contention that the Board erro- requiring the Employer to assign the work of in- neously refused to quash the 10(k) notice of hear- stalling all process piping, including water, air, ing, and urges that the Board should reconsider slurry, mill water, reagent, and line slurry piping, and overturn the underlying 10(k) award. Respond- at the ASARCO Mission Mine Unit project to em- ent further asserts that the General Counsel's ployees represented by it rather than to employees motion to strike should be denied, as the parties represented by Laborers' International Union of stipulated that the purpose of the picketing was to North America, Local No 479, AFL-CIO, herein protest the Employer's refusal to implement the called called the Laborers. The complaint further IJDB award, and therefore its denial of the corn- alleges that Respondent has failed and refused to plaint's allegation that an object of the picketing abide by the Board's July 1, 1981, Decision and was to force or require the Employer to assign Determination of Dispute,' which awarded the dis- work to employees represented by it is correct and puted work to employees represented by the La- appropriate. borers, by failing and refusing to notify the Region- Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the al Director for Region 28, in writing within 10 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- days, whether it would comply with the award, as tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- required thereby. On August 17, 1981, Respondent thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. filed its answer to the complaint admitting in part, Upon the entire record in this proceeding, in- and denying in part, the allegations in the corn- luding the record in the underlying 10(k) proceed- plaint and asserting as an affirmative defense that at ing, 2 the Board makes the following: United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and 2 The Board's taking official notice of the record in the 10(k) proceed- Pipefitting Industry, Local Union No. 741 (The Ashton Company, Inc.), 256 ing, and reliance thereon, is well settled. Local Union No. 3, International NLRB 1022. Continued 259 NLRB No. 123 944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices all times its picketing was merely for the purpose of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local of seeking compliance with an award issued by the Union No. 741 and The Ashton Company, Inc. Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board of the and Laborers' International Union of North Building and Construction Trades Council of the America, Local No. 479. Case 28-CD-195 AFL-CIO, herein called the IJDB, awarding em- January 7, 1982 ployees represented by Respondent the disputed work, and that the Board's refusal to apply that DECISION AND ORDER award and quash the 10(k) notice of hearing was By MEMBER, FANNING, JENKINS, AND-erroneous as a matter of fact and law. BYZMEMBERS FANNIM NG, JENKIN ANDOn September 21, 1981, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a motion to Upon a charge filed on June 25, 1980, by The transfer and continue the matter before the Board, Ashton Company, Inc., herein called the Employ- for summary judgment, and to strike denials in Re- er, and duly served on United Association of Jour- spondent's answer. The General Counsel submits, neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pi- in substance, that Respondent is not entitled to a pefitting Industry, Local Union No. 741, herein hearing de novo on issues which where raised and called Respondent or the Plumbers, the General litigated in the underlying 10(k) proceeding, that Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by Respondent's answer admits that Respondent is the Regional Director for Region 28, issued a com- failing and refusing to accede to and abide by the plaint on August 6, 1981, against Respondent, al- Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute in leging that Respondent had engaged in and was en- that proceeding, and that Respondent is seeking to gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce relitigate those issues. The General Counsel further within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) submits that the Board should strike Respondent's and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Re- answer to the extent that it seeks to deny the al- lations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge and leged object of its picketing activities. Subsequent- complaint and notice of hearing before an adminis- ly, on September 28, 1981, the Board issued an trative law judge were duly served on the parties order transferring the proceeding to the Board and to this proceeding. a Notice To Show Cause why the General Coun- With respect to the unfair labor practices, the sel's motions should not be granted. Respondent complaint alleges in substance that Respondent vio- thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show lated the Act by picketing the Employer's Ameri- Cause and a Motion for Summary Judgment in can Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) favor of Respondent and memorandum in support Mission Mine Unit jobsite from about May to of that motion. In its response, Respondent essen- about August 7, 1980, with an object of forcing or tially reiterates its contention that the Board erro- requiring the Employer to assign the work of in- neously refused to quash the 10(k) notice of hear- stalling all process piping, including water, air, ing, and urges that the Board should reconsider slurry, mill water, reagent, and line slurry piping, and overturn the underlying 10(k) award. Respond- at the ASARCO Mission Mine Unit project to em- ent further asserts that the General Counsel's ployees represented by it rather than to employees motion to strike should be denied, as the parties represented by Laborers' International Union of stipulated that the purpose of the picketing was to North America, Local No 479, AFL-CIO, herein protest the Employer's refusal to implement the called called the Laborers. The complaint further IJDB award, and therefore its denial of the com- alleges that Respondent has failed and refused to plaint's allegation that an object of the picketing abide by the Board's July 1, 1981, Decision and was to force or require the Employer to assign Determination of Dispute,' which awarded the dis- work to employees represented by it is correct and puted work to employees represented by the La- appropriate. borers, by failing and refusing to notify the Region- Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the al Director for Region 28, in writing within 10 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- days, whether it would comply with the award, as tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- required thereby. On August 17, 1981, Respondent thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. filed its answer to the complaint admitting in part, Upon the entire record in this proceeding, in- and denying in part, the allegations in the com- eluding the record in the underlying 10(k) proceed- plaint and asserting as an affirmative defense that at ing, 2 the Board makes the following: I United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and I The Board's taking official notice of the record in the 10(k) proceed- Pipefiting Industry, Local Union No. 741 (The Ashton Company, Inc.), 256 ing, and reliance thereon, is well settled. Local Union No. 3, International NLRB 1022. Continued 259 NLRB No. 123 944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices all times its picketing was merely for the purpose of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local of seeking compliance with an award issued by the Union No. 741 and The Ashton Company, Inc. Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board of the and Laborers' International Union of North Building and Construction Trades Council of the America, Local No. 479. Case 28-CD-195 AFL-CIO, herein called the IJDB, awarding em- January 7, 1982 ployees represented by Respondent the disputed work, and that the Board's refusal to apply that DECISION AND ORDER award and quash the 10(k) notice of hearing was By MEMBER, FANNING, JENKINS, AND-erroneous as a matter of fact and law. BYZMEMBERS FANNIM NG, JENKIN ANDOn September 21, 1981, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a motion to Upon a charge filed on June 25, 1980, by The transfer and continue the matter before the Board, Ashton Company, Inc., herein called the Employ- for summary judgment, and to strike denials in Re- er, and duly served on United Association of Jour- spondent's answer. The General Counsel submits, neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pi- in substance, that Respondent is not entitled to a pefitting Industry, Local Union No. 741, herein hearing de novo on issues which where raised and called Respondent or the Plumbers, the General litigated in the underlying 10(k) proceeding, that Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by Respondent's answer admits that Respondent is the Regional Director for Region 28, issued a com- failing and refusing to accede to and abide by the plaint on August 6, 1981, against Respondent, al- Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute in leging that Respondent had engaged in and was en- that proceeding, and that Respondent is seeking to gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce relitigate those issues. The General Counsel further within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) submits that the Board should strike Respondent's and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Re- answer to the extent that it seeks to deny the al- lations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge and leged object of its picketing activities. Subsequent- complaint and notice of hearing before an adminis- ly, on September 28, 1981, the Board issued an trative law judge were duly served on the parties order transferring the proceeding to the Board and to this proceeding. a Notice To Show Cause why the General Coun- With respect to the unfair labor practices, the sel's motions should not be granted. Respondent complaint alleges in substance that Respondent vio- thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show lated the Act by picketing the Employer's Ameri- Cause and a Motion for Summary Judgment in can Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) favor of Respondent and memorandum in support Mission Mine Unit jobsite from about May to of that motion. In its response, Respondent essen- about August 7, 1980, with an object of forcing or tially reiterates its contention that the Board erro- requiring the Employer to assign the work of in- neously refused to quash the 10(k) notice of hear- stalling all process piping, including water, air, ing, and urges that the Board should reconsider slurry, mill water, reagent, and line slurry piping, and overturn the underlying 10(k) award. Respond- at the ASARCO Mission Mine Unit project to em- ent further asserts that the General Counsel's ployees represented by it rather than to employees motion to strike should be denied, as the parties represented by Laborers' International Union of stipulated that the purpose of the picketing was to North America, Local No 479, AFL-CIO, herein protest the Employer's refusal to implement the called called the Laborers. The complaint further IJDB award, and therefore its denial of the com- alleges that Respondent has failed and refused to plaint's allegation that an object of the picketing abide by the Board's July 1, 1981, Decision and was to force or require the Employer to assign Determination of Dispute,' which awarded the dis- work to employees represented by it is correct and puted work to employees represented by the La- appropriate. borers, by failing and refusing to notify the Region- Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the al Director for Region 28, in writing within 10 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- days, whether it would comply with the award, as tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- required thereby. On August 17, 1981, Respondent thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. filed its answer to the complaint admitting in part, Upon the entire record in this proceeding, in- and denying in part, the allegations in the com- eluding the record in the underlying 10(k) proceed- plaint and asserting as an affirmative defense that at ing, 2 the Board makes the following: I United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and I The Board's taking official notice of the record in the 10(k) proceed- Pipefiting Industry, Local Union No. 741 (The Ashton Company, Inc.), 256 ing, and reliance thereon, is well settled. Local Union No. 3, International NLRB 1022. Continued 259 NLRB No. 123 944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices all times its picketing was merely for the purpose of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local of seeking compliance with an award issued by the Union No. 741 and The Ashton Company, Inc. Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board of the and Laborers' International Union of North Building and Construction Trades Council of the America, Local No. 479. Case 28-CD-195 AFL-CIO, herein called the IJDB, awarding em- January 7, 1982 ployees represented by Respondent the disputed work, and that the Board's refusal to apply that DECISION AND ORDER award and quash the 10(k) notice of hearing was By MEMBER, FANNING, JENKINS, AND-erroneous as a matter of fact and law. BYZMEMBERS FANNIM NG, JENKIN ANDOn September 21, 1981, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a motion to Upon a charge filed on June 25, 1980, by The transfer and continue the matter before the Board, Ashton Company, Inc., herein called the Employ- for summary judgment, and to strike denials in Re- er, and duly served on United Association of Jour- spondent's answer. The General Counsel submits, neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pi- in substance, that Respondent is not entitled to a pefitting Industry, Local Union No. 741, herein hearing de novo on issues which where raised and called Respondent or the Plumbers, the General litigated in the underlying 10(k) proceeding, that Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by Respondent's answer admits that Respondent is the Regional Director for Region 28, issued a com- failing and refusing to accede to and abide by the plaint on August 6, 1981, against Respondent, al- Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute in leging that Respondent had engaged in and was en- that proceeding, and that Respondent is seeking to gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce relitigate those issues. The General Counsel further within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) submits that the Board should strike Respondent's and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Re- answer to the extent that it seeks to deny the al- lations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge and leged object of its picketing activities. Subsequent- complaint and notice of hearing before an adminis- ly, on September 28, 1981, the Board issued an trative law judge were duly served on the parties order transferring the proceeding to the Board and to this proceeding. a Notice To Show Cause why the General Coun- With respect to the unfair labor practices, the sel's motions should not be granted. Respondent complaint alleges in substance that Respondent vio- thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show lated the Act by picketing the Employer's Ameri- Cause and a Motion for Summary Judgment in can Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) favor of Respondent and memorandum in support Mission Mine Unit jobsite from about May to of that motion. In its response, Respondent essen- about August 7, 1980, with an object of forcing or tially reiterates its contention that the Board erro- requiring the Employer to assign the work of in- neously refused to quash the 10(k) notice of hear- stalling all process piping, including water, air, ing, and urges that the Board should reconsider slurry, mill water, reagent, and line slurry piping, and overturn the underlying 10(k) award. Respond- at the ASARCO Mission Mine Unit project to em- ent further asserts that the General Counsel's ployees represented by it rather than to employees motion to strike should be denied, as the parties represented by Laborers' International Union of stipulated that the purpose of the picketing was to North America, Local No 479, AFL-CIO, herein protest the Employer's refusal to implement the called called the Laborers. The complaint further IJDB award, and therefore its denial of the com- alleges that Respondent has failed and refused to plaint's allegation that an object of the picketing abide by the Board's July 1, 1981, Decision and was to force or require the Employer to assign Determination of Dispute,' which awarded the dis- work to employees represented by it is correct and puted work to employees represented by the La- appropriate. borers, by failing and refusing to notify the Region- Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the al Director for Region 28, in writing within 10 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- days, whether it would comply with the award, as tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- required thereby. On August 17, 1981, Respondent thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. filed its answer to the complaint admitting in part, Upon the entire record in this proceeding, in- and denying in part, the allegations in the com- eluding the record in the underlying 10(k) proceed- plaint and asserting as an affirmative defense that at ing, 2 the Board makes the following: I United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and I The Board's taking official notice of the record in the 10(k) proceed- Pipefiting Industry, Local Union No. 741 (The Ashton Company, Inc.), 256 ing, and reliance thereon, is well settled. Local Union No. 3, International NLRB 1022. Continued 259 NLRB No. 123 PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 741 945 Ruling on the Motions To Strike and for ever, is in fact picketing to force the Employer to Summary Judgment assign the work to employees represented by Re- spondent. Thus, we conclude that Respondent is in Review of the record in this proceeding, and of sondent. Thus, we conclude that Respondent is in Review of the record in the underlying 10k) proceeding, ndi- of effect seeking to relitigate issues settled in the 10(k) the record in the underlying 10(k) proceeding, indi- proceeding. This it cannot do, as it is well settled cates that a hearing was held pursuant to Section that issues raised and litigated in a 10(k) proceed that issues raised and litigated in a 10(k) proceeding 10(k) of the Act, at which all parties appeared and may not be relitigated in a subsequent unfair labor were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex- practice proceeding alleging violations of Section amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce 8(b)(4)(D) which are based in part on factual deter- evidence bearing on the issues. On July 1, 1981, the minations made in the 10(k) proceeding. Accord- Board issued its Decision and Determinaton ingly, we grant the General Counsels motion to Dispute, finding, inter alia,- strike the denials in Respondent's a jurisnswer relating dictional dispute involving Respondent and the La- to this issue borers, that an object of Respondent's picketing We found in the 10(k) proceeding, on the basis was to force or require the Employer to assign the of undisputed evidence, that the Plumbers picketed work in dispute to employees represented by Re- at the Employer's ASARCO Mission Mine jobsite spondent, and that reasonable cause existed to be- from May 5 until approximately August 7, 1980 lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act had been with signs stating that the Employer was refusing violated. The Board also found that the result of to c with the IJDBs work assignment the proceeding before the IJDB was not control- award, that the Plumbers had previously sent a ling, as Respondent had contended. 3 After due con- telegram to the Employer demanding that it imple- sideration of the relevant factors, the Board award- ment the IJDB award, and that at various times, as ed the disputed work to employees represented by a result of the picketing, craft employees of the the Laborers, and determined that Respondent was Employer stopped working and there were inter- not entitled by means proscribed by Sectlon ruptions in deliveries to the Employer by third- 8(b)(4XD) of the Act to force or require the Em- party suppliers not involved in the dispute. We fur- ployer to assign the disputed work to employees ther found that an object of the Plumbers' picket- represented by it. The Board further ordered Re- ing was to force or require the Employer to assign spondent to notify the Regional Director for the disputed work to employees represented by the Region 28, in writing within 10 days from the date Plumbers. On this basis we found reasonable cause of the award, whether it would refrain from engag- to believe that Respondent had violated Section ing in proscribed conduct. 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. Since this undisputed evi- By its denials in its answer to the complaint and dence is neither supplemented nor controverted in by its response to the Notice To Show Cause and this proceeding, we here find that the preponder- Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Re- ance of evidence establishes that Respondent pick- spondent, Respondent seeks to place in issue the eted the ASARCO Mission Mine jobsite with an Board's finding in the 10(k) proceeding that an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to object of its picketing was to force or require the assign the work in dispute to employees represent- Employer to assign the disputed work to employ- ed by Respondent, and that by such conduct it vio- ees represented by it. In support of its position, Re- lated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)D) of the Act. spondent argues that the sole purpose of the picket- Respondent's answer admits the allegation that it ing was to obtain compliance with the IJDB deci- has failed and refused to accede to and abide by sion awarding the work to employees represented the work assignment and order of the Board by by it,4 and therefore its denial that the picketing failing and refusing to notify the Regional Director was for an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) for Region 28, in writing, whether it will refrain of the Act is not an attempt to relitigate matters from forcing and requiring the Employer, by previously decided. To picket to force the Employ- means proscribed by Section 8(B)(4XD) of the Act, er to comply with an IJDB award assigning em- to assign the work in a manner inconsistent with ployees represented by Respondent the work, how- the Board's determination. Compliance with a 10(k) award requires a good-faith intent by the particular Brotherhood of Electrical Workers AFL-CIO (Mansfield Contracting Cor-re poration), 206 NLRB 423 (1973); International Association of Bridge, Struc- tural and Ornamental Ironworkers. AFL-CIO, Local 433 (Plaza Glass Local Union No 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Company), 218 NLRB 848 (1975). AFL-CIO (Mansfield Contracting Corporation), supra; Bricklayers, Masons 'The Board specifically found that there was no voluntary method for and Plasterers International Union of America v. N.LR.B, 475 F.2d 1316 the adjustment of this dispute, since all parties were not bound to the (D.C. Cir. 1973), enfg. Bricklayers. Stone Masons, Marble Masons. Tile Set- U1DB procedure. ters and Terrazzo Workers Local Union Na I of Tennessee and Bricklayers, 4 As noted, the Board found that all parties were not bound to the Masons and Plasterers International Union of America (Shelby Marble & IJDB procedure. Tile Co.). 195 NLRB 123 (1972). PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 741 945 Ruling on the Motions To Strike and for ever, is in fact picketing to force the Employer to Summary Judgment assign the work to employees represented by Re- Review of the record in this proceeding, and of- spondent. Thus, we conclude that Respondent is in Review of he record in this proceeding, andi- effect seeking to relitigate issues settled in the 10(k) the record in the underlying 10(k) proceeding, mndi- poceing. This it cannot do. as it is well setried cates that a hearing was held pursuant to Section poedn.Ti tcno o si swl ete 102k) of ithe Act, at whichall pa rties app e ared and that issues raised and litigated in a 10(k) proceeding 10(k) of the Act, at which all parties appeared and may not be relitigated in a subsequent unfair labor were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex- practice proceeding alleging violations of Section amine and cross-examine witnesses. and to adduce 8(b)(4)(D) which are based in part on factual deter- evidence bearing on the issues. On July 1, 1981, the mnations made in the 10(k) proceeding.6 Accord- Board issued its Decision and Determination of m made in to Disute fidig, nte alatheexitene f ajurs- ingly, we grant the General Counsel's motion to Dispute finding, inter ahea, the existence of a juris- strike the denials in Respondent's answer relating dictional dispute involving Respondent and the La- , t . ,hsise borers, that an object of Respondent's picketing We ,„ e 10(k) proceeding, on the basis was to force or require the Employer to assign the undisputed evidence, that the Plumbers picketed work in dispute to employees represented by Re- of ndi Employer's ASARCO Mission Mine jobsite spondent, and that reasonable cause existed to be- ahom May 5 until approximately August 7, 1980, lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act had been from May 5 uating that the Employer was refusing violated. The Board also found that the result of w s t the Emplor assignment the proceeding before the IJDB was not control- tocmld, that the Plumbers had previously sent a ling, as Respondent had contended 3 After due con- telegram to the Employer demanding that it imple- sideration of the relevant factors, the Board award- tlga toe IJDB award, and that at various times, as ed the disputed work to employees represented by result of the picketing, craft employees of the the Laborers, and determined that Respondent was aEmployer stopped working and there were inter- not entitled by means proscribed by Section Epoe tpe okn n hr eeitr 8(b)(4XD) of th e Act to force or requir e t he Em- ruptions in deliveries to the Employer by third- 8(bXy4XD) of the Act to force or require the Em- party suppliers not involved in the dispute. We fur- ployer to assign the disputed work to employees ther found that an object of the Plumbers' picket- represented by it. The Board further ordered Re- ing was to force or require the Employer to assign spondent to notify the Regional Director for the disputed work to employees represented by the Region 28, in writing within 10 days from the date Plumbers. On this basis we found reasonable cause of the award, whether it would refrain from engag- to believe that Respondent had violated Section ing in proscribed conduct. 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. Since this undisputed evi- By its denials in its answer to the complaint and dence is neither supplemented nor controverted in by its response to the Notice To Show Cause and this proceeding, we here find that the preponder- Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Re- ance of evidence establishes that Respondent pick- spondent, Respondent seeks to place in issue the eted the ASARCO Mission Mine jobsite with an Board's finding in the 10(k) proceeding that an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to object of its picketing was to force or require the assign the work in dispute to employees represent- Employer to assign the disputed work to employ- ed by Respondent, and that by such conduct it vio- ees represented by it. In support of its position, Re- lated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (iiXD) of the Act. spondent argues that the sole purpose of the picket- Respondent's answer admits the allegation that it ing was to obtain compliance with the IJDB deci- has failed and refused to accede to and abide by sion awarding the work to employees represented the work assignment and order of the Board by by it,4 and therefore its denial that the picketing failing and refusing to notify the Regional Director was for an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) for Region 28. in writing, whether it will refrain of the Act is not an attempt to relitigate matters from forcing and requiring the Employer, by previously decided. To picket to force the Employ- means proscribed by Section 8(B)(4XD) of the Act, er to comply with an IJDB award assigning em- to assign the work in a manner inconsistent with ployees represented by Respondent the work, how- the Board's determination. Compliance with a 10(k) ------ , , -, ^ „ ~~~~~~award requires a good-faith intent by the particular Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Mansfield Contracting Cor- a r a poration), 206 NLRB 423 (1973); International Association of Bridge. Struc- lural and Ornamental Ironworkers. AFL-CIO, Local 433 (Plaza Glass 5 Local Union No 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Company), 218 NLRB 848 (1975). AFL-CIO (Mansfield Contracting Corporation), supra; Bricklayers, Masons 'The Board specifically found that there was no voluntary method for and Plasterers International Union ofAmerica v. N.L.R.B., 475 F.2d 1316 the adjustment of this dispute, since all parties were not bound to the (D.C. Cir. 1973), enfg. Bricklayers. Stone Masons, Marble Masons, Tile Set- UJDB procedure. ers and Terrazzo Workers Local Union No I of Tennessee and Bricklayers, 4 As noted, the Board found that all parties were not bound to the Masons and Plasterers International Union of America (Shelby Marble t IJDB procedure.Tile Co.), 195 NLRB 123 (1972). PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 741 945 Ruling on the Motions To Strike and for ever, is in fact picketing to force the Employer to Summary Judgment assign the work to employees represented by Re- Review of the record in this proceeding, and of- spondent. Thus, we conclude that Respondent is in Review of he record in this proceeding, andi- effect seeking to relitigate issues settled in the 10(k) the record in the underlying 10(k) proceeding, mndi- poeding. This it cannot do. as it is well setried cates that a hearing was held pursuant to Section poedn.Ti tcno o si swl ete 102k) of ithe Act, at whichall pa rties app e ared and that issues raised and litigated in a 10(k) proceeding 10(k) of the Act, at which all parties appeared and may not be relitigated in a subsequent unfair labor were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex- practice proceeding alleging violations of Section amine and cross-examine witnesses. and to adduce 8(b)(4)(D) which are based in part on factual deter- evidence bearing on the issues. On July 1, 1981, the mnations made in the 10(k) proceeding.6 Accord- Board issued its Decision and Determination of m made in to Disute fidig, nte alatheexitene f ajurs- ingly, we grant the General Counsel's motion to Dispute finding, inter ahea, the existence of a juris- strike the denials in Respondent's answer relating dictional dispute involving Respondent and the La- , t . ,hsise borers, that an object of Respondent's picketing und in the 10(k) proceeding, on the basis was to force or require the Employer to assign the undisputed evidence, that the Plumbers picketed work in dispute to employees represented by Re- of ndi Employer's ASARCO Mission Mine jobsite spondent, and that reasonable cause existed to be- ahom May 5 until approximately August 7, 1980, lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act had been f May , un that the Employer was refusing violated. The Board also found that the result of w s she Emplor assignment the proceeding before the IJDB was not control- tocmld, that the Plumbers had previously sent a ling, as Respondent had contended 3 After due con- telegram to the Employer demanding that it imple- sideration of the relevant factors, the Board award- tlga to thDB award, and that at various times, as ed the disputed work to employees represented by result of the picketing, craft employees of the the Laborers, and determined that Respondent was aEmployer stopped working and there were inter- not entitled by means proscribed by Section Epoe tpe okn n hr eeitr 8(b)(4XD) of th e Act to force or requir e t he Em- ruptions in deliveries to the Employer by third- 8(bXy4XD) of the Act to force or require the Em- party suppliers not involved in the dispute. We fur- ployer to assign the disputed work to employees ther found that an object of the Plumbers' picket- represented by it. The Board further ordered Re- ing was to force or require the Employer to assign spondent to notify the Regional Director for the disputed work to employees represented by the Region 28, in writing within 10 days from the date Plumbers. On this basis we found reasonable cause of the award, whether it would refrain from engag- to believe that Respondent had violated Section ing in proscribed conduct. 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. Since this undisputed evi- By its denials in its answer to the complaint and dence is neither supplemented nor controverted in by its response to the Notice To Show Cause and this proceeding, we here find that the preponder- Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Re- ance of evidence establishes that Respondent pick- spondent, Respondent seeks to place in issue the eted the ASARCO Mission Mine jobsite with an Board's finding in the 10(k) proceeding that an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to object of its picketing was to force or require the assign the work in dispute to employees represent- Employer to assign the disputed work to employ- ed by Respondent, and that by such conduct it vio- ees represented by it. In support of its position, Re- lated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (iiXD) of the Act. spondent argues that the sole purpose of the picket- Respondent's answer admits the allegation that it ing was to obtain compliance with the IJDB deci- has failed and refused to accede to and abide by sion awarding the work to employees represented the work assignment and order of the Board by by it,4 and therefore its denial that the picketing failing and refusing to notify the Regional Director was for an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) for Region 28. in writing, whether it will refrain of the Act is not an attempt to relitigate matters from forcing and requiring the Employer, by previously decided. To picket to force the Employ- means proscribed by Section 8(B)(4XD) of the Act, er to comply with an IJDB award assigning em- to assign the work in a manner inconsistent with ployees represented by Respondent the work, how- the Board's determination. Compliance with a 10(k) ------ , , „ . „ „ ~~~~~award requires a good-faith intent by the particular Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Mansfield Contracting Cor- a r a poration), 206 NLRB 423 (1973); International Association of Bridge. Struc- lural and Ornamental Ironworkers. AFL-CIO, Local 433 (Plaza Glass 5 Local Union No 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Company), 218 NLRB 848 (1975). AFL-CIO (Mansfield Contracting Corporation), supra; Bricklayers, Masons 'The Board specifically found that there was no voluntary method for and Plasterers International Union ofAmerica v. N.L.R.B., 475 F.2d 1316 the adjustment of this dispute, since all parties were not bound to the (D.C. Cir. 1973), enfg. Bricklayers. Stone Masons, Marble Masons, Tile Set- UJDB procedure. ers and Terrazzo Workers Local Union No I of Tennessee and Bricklayers, 4 As noted, the Board found that all parties were not bound to the Masons and Plasterers International Union of America (Shelby Marble t IJDB procedure.Tile Co.), 195 NLRB 123 (1972). PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 741 945 Ruling on the Motions To Strike and for ever, is in fact picketing to force the Employer to Summary Judgment assign the work to employees represented by Re- Review of the record in this proceeding, and of- spondent. Thus, we conclude that Respondent is in Review of he record it this proceeding, andi- effect seeking to relitigate issues settled in the 10(k) the record in the underlying 10(k) proceeding, mndi- poeding. This it cannot do. as it is well setried cates that a hearing was held pursuant to Section poedn.Ti tcno o si swl ete 102k) of ithe Act, at whichall pa rties app e ared and that issues raised and litigated in a 10(k) proceeding 10(k) of the Act, at which all parties appeared and may not be relitigated in a subsequent unfair labor were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex- practice proceeding alleging violations of Section amine and cross-examine witnesses. and to adduce 8(b)(4)(D) which are based in part on factual deter- evidence bearing on the issues. On July 1, 1981, the minations made in the 10(k) proceeding.6 Accord- Board issued its Decision and Determination of m m in to Disute fidig, nte alatheexitene f ajurs- ingly, we grant the General Counsel's motion to Dispute finding, inter ahea, the existence of a juris- strike the denials in Respondent's answer relating dictional dispute involving Respondent and the La- .t . ,hsise borers, that an object of Respondent's picketing und in the 10(k) proceeding, on the basis was to force or require the Employer to assign the of undisputed evidence, that the Plumbers picketed work in dispute to employees represented by Re- of ndi Employer's ASARCO Mission Mine jobsite spondent, and that reasonable cause existed to be- ahom May 5 until approximately August 7, 1980, lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act had been f May 5 un that the Employer was refusing violated. The Board also found that the result of w s the Emplor assignment the proceeding before the IJDB was not control- tocmld, that the Plumbers had previously sent a ling, as Respondent had contended 3 After due con- telegram to the Employer demanding that it imple- sideration of the relevant factors, the Board award- tlga to thDB award, and that at various times, as ed the disputed work to employees represented by result of the picketing, craft employees of the the Laborers, and determined that Respondent was aEmployer stopped working and there were inter- not entitled by means proscribed by Section Epoe tpe okn n hr eeitr 8(b)(4XD) of th e Act to force or requir e t he Em- ruptions in deliveries to the Employer by third- 8(bXy4XD) of the Act to force or require the Em- party suppliers not involved in the dispute. We fur- ployer to assign the disputed work to employees ther found that an object of the Plumbers' picket- represented by it. The Board further ordered Re- ing was to force or require the Employer to assign spondent to notify the Regional Director for the disputed work to employees represented by the Region 28, in writing within 10 days from the date Plumbers. On this basis we found reasonable cause of the award, whether it would refrain from engag- to believe that Respondent had violated Section ing in proscribed conduct. 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. Since this undisputed evi- By its denials in its answer to the complaint and dence is neither supplemented nor controverted in by its response to the Notice To Show Cause and this proceeding, we here find that the preponder- Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Re- ance of evidence establishes that Respondent pick- spondent, Respondent seeks to place in issue the eted the ASARCO Mission Mine jobsite with an Board's finding in the 10(k) proceeding that an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to object of its picketing was to force or require the assign the work in dispute to employees represent- Employer to assign the disputed work to employ- ed by Respondent, and that by such conduct it vio- ees represented by it. In support of its position, Re- lated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (iiXD) of the Act. spondent argues that the sole purpose of the picket- Respondent's answer admits the allegation that it ing was to obtain compliance with the IJDB deci- has failed and refused to accede to and abide by sion awarding the work to employees represented the work assignment and order of the Board by by it,4 and therefore its denial that the picketing failing and refusing to notify the Regional Director was for an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) for Region 28. in writing, whether it will refrain of the Act is not an attempt to relitigate matters from forcing and requiring the Employer, by previously decided. To picket to force the Employ- means proscribed by Section 8(B)(4XD) of the Act, er to comply with an IJDB award assigning em- to assign the work in a manner inconsistent with ployees represented by Respondent the work, how- the Board's determination. Compliance with a 10(k) ------ , , „ . „ „ ~~~~~award requires a good-faith intent by the particular Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Mansfield Contracting Cor- a r a poration), 206 NLRB 423 (1973); International Association of Bridge. Struc- lural and Ornamental Ironworkers. AFL-CIO, Local 433 (Plaza Glass 5 Local Union No 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Company), 218 NLRB 848 (1975). AFL-CIO (Mansfield Contracting Corporation), supra; Bricklayers, Masons 'The Board specifically found that there was no voluntary method for and Plasterers International Union ofAmerica v. N.L.R.B., 475 F.2d 1316 the adjustment of this dispute, since all parties were not bound to the (D.C. Cir. 1973), enfg. Bricklayers. Stone Masons, Marble Masons, Tile Set- UJDB procedure. ers and Terrazzo Workers Local Union No I of Tennessee and Bricklayers, 4 As noted, the Board found that all parties were not bound to the Masons and Plasterers International Union of America (Shelby Marble t IJDB procedure.Tile Co.), 195 NLRB 123 (1972). 946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent to accept and abide thereby, including a slurry piping, at the Employer's ASARCO Mission timely and unequivocal written statement to the Mine Unit jobsite in Sahuarita, Arizona. From Regional Director indicating such an intent, as is about May 5 to about August 7, 1980, Respondent required by the 10(k) award. 6 Respondent has com- picketed the ASARCO Mission Mine Unit jobsite pletely failed to notify the Regional Director of its with an object of forcing or requiring the Employ- intent to abide, or not to abide, by the 10(k) award, er to assign the disputed work to employees repre- a lack of expression which clearly does not mani- sented by it. In so doing, Respondent induced or fest the required good-faith intent to abide by the encouraged employees of Ashton and its suppliers Board's determination. In these circumstances, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of having found on the basis of undisputed evidence their employment to use, manufacture, transport, or that Respondent had demanded the disputed work, otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, and that it has not expressed a good-faith intent to materials, or commodities, or to perform services, abide by the Board's resolution of the dispute in and has threatened, coerced, and restrained the the 10(k) proceeding, we infer that Respondent has Employer and other persons engaged in commerce not abided thereby and has continued to demand or in industries affecting commerce, with an object the disputed work. Thus, there being no issues of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign the properly litigable in this proceeding, we grant the disputed work to employees represented by Re- General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. spondent, rather than to employees represented by Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment in its the Laborers. favor is accordingly denied. On the basis of the entire record, the Board B. The Determination of the Dispute makes the following: On July 1, 1981, the Board issued a Decision and FINDINGS OF FACT Determination of Dispute (256 NLRB 1022) find- ing that employees represented by the Laborers are I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER entitled to perform the disputed work, and that Re- The Employer, an Arizona corporation with its spondent was not entitled by means proscribed by principal place of business in Tucson, Arizona, is Sectlon 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require engaged in business as a construction contractor. the Employer to assigned the work to employees During the past year, the Employer purchased represented by it. goods from directly outside the State of Arizona C. Respondent's Refusal To Comply having a value in excess of $50,000. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that the By failing and refusing to notify the Regional Employer is, and has been at all times material Director for Region 28, in writing, of its intent to herein, an employer engaged in commerce within comply with the above-mentioned Decision and the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and Determination of Dispute, Respondent has not that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to complied with the award and has continued to assert jurisdiction herein. demand the disputed work. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE United Association of Journeymen and Appren- tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, The activities of Respondent set forth in section Local Union No. 741, and Laborers' International III, above, occurring in connection with the oper- Union of North America, Local No. 479, AFL- ations of the Employer described in section I, CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- Section 2(5) of the Act. tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES burdening and obstructing commerce and the free A. Background and Facts of the Dispute flow of commerce. At all times material hereto, Respondent and the v. THE REMEDY Laborers have had a jurisdictional dispute concern- Respondent has engaged in ing the work of installing all process piping, includ- and is e i n unfair labor practices affecting ing water, air, slurry, mill water, reagent, and line commerce within the meaning of Section commerce within the meaning of Section ' International Association of Bridge. Structural and Ornamental Iron- 8(b)(4)(D)(i) and (ii) of the Act, we shall order that workers AFL-CIO Local 433 (Plaza Glass Company), supra. it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- 946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent to accept and abide thereby, including a slurry piping, at the Employer's ASARCO Mission timely and unequivocal written statement to the Mine Unit jobsite in Sahuarita, Arizona. From Regional Director indicating such an intent, as is about May 5 to about August 7, 1980, Respondent required by the 10(k) award.' Respondent has com- picketed the ASARCO Mission Mine Unit jobsite pletely failed to notify the Regional Director of its with an object of forcing or requiring the Employ- intent to abide, or not to abide, by the 10(k) award, er to assign the disputed work to employees repre- a lack of expression which clearly does not mani- sented by it. In so doing, Respondent induced or fest the required good-faith intent to abide by the encouraged employees of Ashton and its suppliers Board's determination. In these circumstances, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of having found on the basis of undisputed evidence their employment to use, manufacture, transport, or that Respondent had demanded the disputed work, otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, and that it has not expressed a good-faith intent to materials, or commodities, or to perform services, abide by the Board's resolution of the dispute in and has threatened, coerced, and restrained the the 10(k) proceeding, we infer that Respondent has Employer and other persons engaged in commerce not abided thereby and has continued to demand or in industries affecting commerce, with an object the disputed work. Thus, there being no issues of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign the properly litigable in this proceeding, we grant the disputed work to employees represented by Re- General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. spondent, rather than to employees represented by Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment in its the Laborers. favor is accordingly denied. On the basis of the entire record, the Board B. The Determination of the Dispute makes the following: On July i, 1981, the Board issued a Decision and FINDINGS OF FACT Determination of Dispute (256 NLRB 1022) find- ing that employees represented by the Laborers are I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER entitled to perform the disputed work, and that Re- The Employer, an Arizona corporation with its spondent was not entitled by means p r o sc r i bed b y principal place of business in Tucson, Arizona, is Sec tio n 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require engaged in business as a construction contractor. the Employer to assigned the work to employees During the past year, the Employer purchased represented by it. goods from directly outside the State of Arizona C. Respondent's Refusal To Comply having a value in excess of $50,000. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that the By failing and refusing to notify the Regional Employer is, and has been at all times material Director for Region 28, in writing, of its intent to herein, an employer engaged in commerce within comply with the above-mentioned Decision and the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and Determination of Dispute, Respondent has not that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to complied with the award and has continued to assert jurisdiction herein. demand the disputed work. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR - - ... . . , - , .~~~~PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE United Association of Journeymen and Appren- tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, The activities of Respondent set forth in section Local Union No. 741, and Laborers' International III, above, occurring in connection with the oper- Union of North America, Local No. 479, AFL- ations of the Employer described in section I, CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- Section 2(5) of the Act. tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES burdening and obstructing commerce and the free A. Background and Facts of the Dispute flo w o f commerce. At all times material hereto, Respondent and the v. THE REMEDY Laborers have had a jurisdictional dispute concern- Having found that Respondent has engaged in ing the work of installing all process piping, includ- and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting ing water, air, slurry, mill water, reagent, and line commerce within the meaning of Section I International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron- 8(b)(4)(D)(i) and (ii) of the Act, we shall Order that workes AFL-CIO, Local 433 (Plaza Glass Company), supra. it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- 946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent to accept and abide thereby, including a slurry piping, at the Employer's ASARCO Mission timely and unequivocal written statement to the Mine Unit jobsite in Sahuarita, Arizona. From Regional Director indicating such an intent, as is about May 5 to about August 7, 1980, Respondent required by the 10(k) award.' Respondent has com- picketed the ASARCO Mission Mine Unit jobsite pletely failed to notify the Regional Director of its with an object of forcing or requiring the Employ- intent to abide, or not to abide, by the 10(k) award, er to assign the disputed work to employees repre- a lack of expression which clearly does not mani- sented by it. In so doing, Respondent induced or fest the required good-faith intent to abide by the encouraged employees of Ashton and its suppliers Board's determination. In these circumstances, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of having found on the basis of undisputed evidence their employment to use, manufacture, transport, or that Respondent had demanded the disputed work, otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, and that it has not expressed a good-faith intent to materials, or commodities, or to perform services, abide by the Board's resolution of the dispute in and has threatened, coerced, and restrained the the 10(k) proceeding, we infer that Respondent has Employer and other persons engaged in commerce not abided thereby and has continued to demand or in industries affecting commerce, with an object the disputed work. Thus, there being no issues of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign the properly litigable in this proceeding, we grant the disputed work to employees represented by Re- General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. spondent, rather than to employees represented by Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment in its the Laborers. favor is accordingly denied. On the basis of the entire record, the Board B. The Determination of the Dispute makes the following: On July 1, 1981, the Board issued a Decision and FINDINGS OF FACT Determination of Dispute (256 NLRB 1022) find- ing that employees represented by the Laborers are I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER entitled to perform the disputed work, and that Re- The Employer, an Arizona corporation with its spondent was not entitled by means p r o sc r i bed b y principal place of business in Tucson, Arizona, is Sec tio n 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require engaged in business as a construction contractor. the Employer to assigned the work to employees During the past year, the Employer purchased represented by it. goods from directly outside the State of Arizona C. Respondent's Refusal To Comply having a value in excess of $50,000. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that the By failing and refusing to notify the Regional Employer is, and has been at all times material Director for Region 28, in writing, of its intent to herein, an employer engaged in commerce within comply with the above-mentioned Decision and the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and Determination of Dispute, Respondent has not that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to complied with the award and has continued to assert jurisdiction herein. demand the disputed work. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR - - ... . . , - , .~~~~PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE United Association of Journeymen and Appren- tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, The activities of Respondent set forth in section Local Union No. 741, and Laborers' International III, above, occurring in connection with the oper- Union of North America, Local No. 479, AFL- ations of the Employer described in section I, CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- Section 2(5) of the Act. tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES burdening and obstructing commerce and the free A. Background and Facts of the Dispute flo w o f commerce. At all times material hereto, Respondent and the v. THE REMEDY Laborers have had a jurisdictional dispute concern- Having found that Respondent has engaged in ing the work of installing all process piping, includ- and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting ing water, air, slurry, mill water, reagent, and line commerce within the meaning of Section I International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron- 8(b)(4)(D)(i) and (ii) of the Act, we shall Order that workes AFL-CIO, Local 433 (Plaza Glass Company), supra. it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- 946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent to accept and abide thereby, including a slurry piping, at the Employer's ASARCO Mission timely and unequivocal written statement to the Mine Unit jobsite in Sahuarita, Arizona. From Regional Director indicating such an intent, as is about May 5 to about August 7, 1980, Respondent required by the 10(k) award.' Respondent has com- picketed the ASARCO Mission Mine Unit jobsite pletely failed to notify the Regional Director of its with an object of forcing or requiring the Employ- intent to abide, or not to abide, by the 10(k) award, er to assign the disputed work to employees repre- a lack of expression which clearly does not mani- sented by it. In so doing, Respondent induced or fest the required good-faith intent to abide by the encouraged employees of Ashton and its suppliers Board's determination. In these circumstances, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of having found on the basis of undisputed evidence their employment to use, manufacture, transport, or that Respondent had demanded the disputed work, otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, and that it has not expressed a good-faith intent to materials, or commodities, or to perform services, abide by the Board's resolution of the dispute in and has threatened, coerced, and restrained the the 10(k) proceeding, we infer that Respondent has Employer and other persons engaged in commerce not abided thereby and has continued to demand or in industries affecting commerce, with an object the disputed work. Thus, there being no issues of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign the properly litigable in this proceeding, we grant the disputed work to employees represented by Re- General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. spondent, rather than to employees represented by Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment in its the Laborers. favor is accordingly denied. On the basis of the entire record, the Board B. The Determination of the Dispute makes the following: On July 1, 1981, the Board issued a Decision and FINDINGS OF FACT Determination of Dispute (256 NLRB 1022) find- ing that employees represented by the Laborers are I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER entitled to perform the disputed work, and that Re- The Employer, an Arizona corporation with its spondent was not entitled by means p r o sc r i bed b y principal place of business in Tucson, Arizona, is Sec tio n 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require engaged in business as a construction contractor. the Employer to assigned the work to employees During the past year, the Employer purchased represented by it. goods from directly outside the State of Arizona C. Respondent's Refusal To Comply having a value in excess of $50,000. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that the By failing and refusing to notify the Regional Employer is, and has been at all times material Director for Region 28, in writing, of its intent to herein, an employer engaged in commerce within comply with the above-mentioned Decision and the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and Determination of Dispute, Respondent has not that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to complied with the award and has continued to assert jurisdiction herein. demand the disputed work. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR - - ... . . , - , .~~~~PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE United Association of Journeymen and Appren- tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, The activities of Respondent set forth in section Local Union No. 741, and Laborers' International III, above, occurring in connection with the oper- Union of North America, Local No. 479, AFL- ations of the Employer described in section I, CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- Section 2(5) of the Act. tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES burdening and obstructing commerce and the free A. Background and Facts of the Dispute flo w o f commerce. At all times material hereto, Respondent and the v. THE REMEDY Laborers have had a jurisdictional dispute concern- Having found that Respondent has engaged in ing the work of installing all process piping, includ- and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting ing water, air, slurry, mill water, reagent, and line commerce within the meaning of Section I International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron- 8(b)(4)(D)(i) and (ii) of the Act, we shall Order that workes AFL-CIO, Local 433 (Plaza Glass Company), supra. it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 741 947 firmative action designed to effectuate the policies industry affecting commerce, where, in either case, of the Act. an object thereof is to force or require The Ashton Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the Company, Inc., to assign the work of installing all entire record, the Board makes the following: process piping, including water, air, slurry, mill water, reagent, and line slurry piping, at Ashton's American Smelting and Refining Company Mission 1. The Ashton Company, Inc., is an employer Mine jobsite in Sahuarita, Arizona, to employees engaged in commerce or an industry affecting corn- represented by it rather than to employees repre- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) sented by Laborers' International Union of North of the Act. America, Local No. 479, AFL-CIO. 2. Respondent United Association of Journey- (b) Refusing to comply with the Board's Deci- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefit- sion and Determination of Dispute as set forth at ting Industry, Local Union No. 741, and Laborers' 256 NLRB No. 149. International Union of North America, Local No. 2. Take the following affirmative action which 479, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Act: 3. By inducing or encouraging employees of The (a) Post at its business and meeting halls copies Ashton Company, Inc., and its suppliers to engage of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies in a strike or a refusal in the course of their em- of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional ployment to use, manufacture, transport, or other- Director for Region 28, after being duly signed by wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materi- Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- als, or commodities, or to perform services, and by spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be threatening, coercing, and restraining Ashton and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, other persons engaged in commerce or in industries in conspicuous places, including all places where affecting commerce, with an object of forcing or notices to members are customarily posted. Rea- requiring Ashton to assign the disputed work to sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to employees represented by it, and by failing and re- insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or fusing to comply with the Board's Decision and covered by any other material. Determination of Dispute and continuing to (b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 28 demand the disputed work, Respondent has en- signed copies of such notice for posting by the Em- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices ployer, if willing, in places where notices to em- within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) ployees are customarily posted. of the Act. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, 4. The aforementioned unfair labor practices are in writing, within 20 days from the date of this unfair labor practices affecting commerce within Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. herewith. ORDER' In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an ,~. . „ -ii- i- -i «- «- r> i ~Order of the National Labor Relations Board." lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices APPENDIX of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local Union No. 741, Sahuarita, Arizona, its officers, NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS agents, and representatives, shall: POSTED BY ORDER OF THE 1. Cease and desist from: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Inducing or encouraging individuals em- An Agency of the United States Government ployed by The Ashton Company, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry encourage individ- WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individ- affecting commerce, to engage in (1) a strike or re- u , , uals employed by The Ashton Company, Inc., fusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacuture, transport, or otherwise handle or or other person engaged in commerce or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commod- an industry affecting commerce, to engage in ities, or to perform services, or (2) threatening, co- () a strke or refusal in the course of their em- ercing, or restraining The Ashton Company, Inc., ployment to use, manufacture, transport, or or any other person engaged in commerce or in anotherwise handle or work on any goods, arti- PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 741 947 firmative action designed to effectuate the policies industry affecting commerce, where, in either case, of the Act. an object thereof is to force or require The Ashton Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the Company, Inc., to assign the work of installing all entire record, the Board makes the following: process piping, including water, air, slurry, mill water, reagent, and line slurry piping, at Ashton's American Smelting and Refining Company Mission 1. The Ashton Company, Inc., is an employer Mine jobsite in Sahuarita, Arizona, to employees engaged in commerce or an industry affecting com- represented by it rather than to employees repre- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) sented by Laborers' International Union of North of the Act. America, Local No. 479, AFL-CIO. 2. Respondent United Association of Journey- (b) Refusing to comply with the Board's Deci- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefit- sion and Determination of Dispute as set forth at ting Industry, Local Union No. 741, and Laborers' 256 NLRB No. 149. International Union of North America, Local No. 2. Take the following affirmative action which 479, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Act: 3. By inducing or encouraging employees of The (a) Post at its business and meeting halls copies Ashton Company, Inc., and its suppliers to engage of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies in a strike or a refusal in the course of their em- of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional ployment to use, manufacture, transport, or other- Director for Region 28, after being duly signed by wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materi- Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- als, or commodities, or to perform services, and by spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be threatening, coercing, and restraining Ashton and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, other persons engaged in commerce or in industries in conspicuous places, including all places where affecting commerce, with an object of forcing or notices to members are customarily posted. Rea- requiring Ashton to assign the disputed work to sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to employees represented by it, and by failing and re- insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or fusing to comply with the Board's Decision and covered by any other material. Determination of Dispute and continuing to (b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 28 demand the disputed work, Respondent has en- signed copies of such notice for posting by the Em- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices ployer, if willing, in places where notices to em- within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) ployees are customarily posted. of the Act. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, 4. The aforementioned unfair labor practices are in writing, within 20 days from the date of this unfair labor practices affecting commerce within Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. herewith. ORDER 7In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Pursuant to Section 10(c) Of the National Labor Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an , . „ -ii- i- -i «- «- r> i ~~~~~~~Order of the National Labor Relations Board." lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices APPENDIX of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local Union No. 741, Sahuarita, Arizona, its officers, NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS agents, and representatives, shall: POSTED BY ORDER OF THE 1. Cease and desist from: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Inducing or encouraging individuals em- An Agency of the United States Government ployed by The Ashton Company, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry W W NOT i encourage individ- affecting commerce, to engage in (1) a strike or re- u e by T At C a , fusal in the course of their employment to use, o a ny othe p eg e in commerce or manufacuture, transport, or otherwise handle or a inusr aecting commerce or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commod- an, an dustry orrfsinth commerce, to engage in ities, or to perform services, or (2) threatening, co- s tr p k e o r r efu salm n th e c o ur se o f thrs t em - ercing, or restraining The Ashton Company, Inc., ployment to use, manufacture, transport, or or any other person engaged in commerce or in anotherwise handle or work on any goods, arti- PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 741 947 firmative action designed to effectuate the policies industry affecting commerce, where, in either case, of the Act. an object thereof is to force or require The Ashton Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the Company, Inc., to assign the work of installing all entire record, the Board makes the following: process piping, including water, air, slurry, mill water, reagent, and line slurry piping, at Ashton's American Smelting and Refining Company Mission 1. The Ashton Company, Inc., is an employer Mine jobsite in Sahuarita, Arizona, to employees engaged in commerce or an industry affecting com- represented by it rather than to employees repre- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) sented by Laborers' International Union of North of the Act. America, Local No. 479, AFL-CIO. 2. Respondent United Association of Journey- (b) Refusing to comply with the Board's Deci- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefit- sion and Determination of Dispute as set forth at ting Industry, Local Union No. 741, and Laborers' 256 NLRB No. 149. International Union of North America, Local No. 2. Take the following affirmative action which 479, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Act: 3. By inducing or encouraging employees of The (a) Post at its business and meeting halls copies Ashton Company, Inc., and its suppliers to engage of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies in a strike or a refusal in the course of their em- of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional ployment to use, manufacture, transport, or other- Director for Region 28, after being duly signed by wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materi- Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- als, or commodities, or to perform services, and by spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be threatening, coercing, and restraining Ashton and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, other persons engaged in commerce or in industries in conspicuous places, including all places where affecting commerce, with an object of forcing or notices to members are customarily posted. Rea- requiring Ashton to assign the disputed work to sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to employees represented by it, and by failing and re- insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or fusing to comply with the Board's Decision and covered by any other material. Determination of Dispute and continuing to (b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 28 demand the disputed work, Respondent has en- signed copies of such notice for posting by the Em- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices ployer, if willing, in places where notices to em- within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) ployees are customarily posted. of the Act. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, 4. The aforementioned unfair labor practices are in writing, within 20 days from the date of this unfair labor practices affecting commerce within Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. herewith. ORDER 7In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Pursuant to Section 10(c) Of the National Labor Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an , . „ -ii- i- -i «- «- r> i ~~~~~~~Order of the National Labor Relations Board." lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices APPENDIX of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local Union No. 741, Sahuarita, Arizona, its officers, NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS agents, and representatives, shall: POSTED BY ORDER OF THE 1. Cease and desist from: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Inducing or encouraging individuals em- An Agency of the United States Government ployed by The Ashton Company, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry W W NOT i encourage individ- affecting commerce, to engage in (1) a strike or re- u e by T At C a , fusal in the course of their employment to use, o a ny oyer p en gagedtin commerce or manufacuture, transport, or otherwise handle or a i tr aecting commerce or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commod- an *"dstrieo refsint commerce, to engage in ities, or to perform services, or (2) threatening, co- st po k e o r r efu salm n the c o ur se o f their em- ercing, or restraining The Ashton Company, Inc., ployment to use, manufacture, transport, or or any other person engaged in commerce or in anotherwise handle or work on any goods, arti- PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 741 947 firmative action designed to effectuate the policies industry affecting commerce, where, in either case, of the Act. an object thereof is to force or require The Ashton Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the Company, Inc., to assign the work of installing all entire record, the Board makes the following: process piping, including water, air, slurry, mill water, reagent, and line slurry piping, at Ashton's American Smelting and Refining Company Mission 1. The Ashton Company, Inc., is an employer Mine jobsite in Sahuarita, Arizona, to employees engaged in commerce or an industry affecting com- represented by it rather than to employees repre- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) sented by Laborers' International Union of North of the Act. America, Local No. 479, AFL-CIO. 2. Respondent United Association of Journey- (b) Refusing to comply with the Board's Deci- men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefit- sion and Determination of Dispute as set forth at ting Industry, Local Union No. 741, and Laborers' 256 NLRB No. 149. International Union of North America, Local No. 2. Take the following affirmative action which 479, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Act: 3. By inducing or encouraging employees of The (a) Post at its business and meeting halls copies Ashton Company, Inc., and its suppliers to engage of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies in a strike or a refusal in the course of their em- of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional ployment to use, manufacture, transport, or other- Director for Region 28, after being duly signed by wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materi- Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- als, or commodities, or to perform services, and by spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be threatening, coercing, and restraining Ashton and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, other persons engaged in commerce or in industries in conspicuous places, including all places where affecting commerce, with an object of forcing or notices to members are customarily posted. Rea- requiring Ashton to assign the disputed work to sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to employees represented by it, and by failing and re- insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or fusing to comply with the Board's Decision and covered by any other material. Determination of Dispute and continuing to (b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 28 demand the disputed work, Respondent has en- signed copies of such notice for posting by the Em- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices ployer, if willing, in places where notices to em- within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) ployees are customarily posted. of the Act. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, 4. The aforementioned unfair labor practices are in writing, within 20 days from the date of this unfair labor practices affecting commerce within Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. herewith. ORDER 7In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Pursuant to Section 10(c) Of the National Labor Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an , . „ -ii- i- -i «- «- r> i ~~~~~~~Order of the National Labor Relations Board." lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices APPENDIX of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local Union No. 741, Sahuarita, Arizona, its officers, NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS agents, and representatives, shall: POSTED BY ORDER OF THE 1. Cease and desist from: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Inducing or encouraging individuals em- An Agency of the United States Government ployed by The Ashton Company, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry W W NOT i encourage individ- affecting commerce, to engage in (1) a strike or re- u e by T At C a , fusal in the course of their employment to use, o a ny otherepebynTeegAshton commerce or manufacuture, transport, or otherwise handle or a i tr aecting commerce or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commod- an *"dstrieo refsint commerce, to engage in ities, or to perform services, or (2) threatening, co- st po k e or refusal in the course of their em- ercing, or restraining The Ashton Company, Inc., ployment to use, manufacture, transport, or or any other person engaged in commerce or in anotherwise handle or work on any goods, arti- 948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cles, materials, or commodities, or to perform employees represented by Laborers' Interna- services, or (2) threaten, coerce, or restrain tional Union of North America, Local No. The Ashton Company, Inc., or any other 479, AFL-CIO. person engaged in commerce or in an industry WE WILL NOT refuse to comply with the affecting commerce, where, in either case, an Board's Decision and Determination of Dis- object thereof is to force or require The pute as set forth at 256 NLRB 1022 (1981). Ashton Company, Inc., to assign the work of installing all process piping, at Ashton's UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEY- American Smelting and Refining Company MEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE Mission Mine jobsite in Sahuarita, Arizona, to PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUS- employees represented by us rather than to TRY, LOCAL UNION No. 741 948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cles, materials, or commodities, or to perform employees represented by Laborers' Interna- services, or (2) threaten, coerce, or restrain tional Union of North America, Local No. The Ashton Company, Inc., or any other 479, AFL-CIO. person engaged in commerce or in an industry WE WILL NOT refuse to comply with the affecting commerce, where, in either case, an Board's Decision and Determination of Dis- object thereof is to force or require The pute as set forth at 256 NLRB 1022 (1981). Ashton Company, Inc., to assign the work of installing all process piping, at Ashton's UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEY- American Smelting and Refining Company MEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE Mission Mine jobsite in Sahuarita, Arizona, to PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUS- employees represented by us rather than to TRY, LOCAL UNION No. 741 948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cles, materials, or commodities, or to perform employees represented by Laborers' Interna- services, or (2) threaten, coerce, or restrain tional Union of North America, Local No. The Ashton Company, Inc., or any other 479, AFL-CIO. person engaged in commerce or in an industry WE WILL NOT refuse to comply with the affecting commerce, where, in either case, an Board's Decision and Determination of Dis- object thereof is to force or require The pute as set forth at 256 NLRB 1022 (1981). Ashton Company, Inc., to assign the work of installing all process piping, at Ashton's UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEY- American Smelting and Refining Company MEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE Mission Mine jobsite in Sahuarita, Arizona, to PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUS- employees represented by us rather than to TRY, LOCAL UNION No. 741 948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cles, materials, or commodities, or to perform employees represented by Laborers' Interna- services, or (2) threaten, coerce, or restrain tional Union of North America, Local No. The Ashton Company, Inc., or any other 479, AFL-CIO. person engaged in commerce or in an industry WE WILL NOT refuse to comply with the affecting commerce, where, in either case, an Board's Decision and Determination of Dis- object thereof is to force or require The pute as set forth at 256 NLRB 1022 (1981). Ashton Company, Inc., to assign the work of installing all process piping, at Ashton's UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEY- American Smelting and Refining Company MEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE Mission Mine jobsite in Sahuarita, Arizona, to PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUS- employees represented by us rather than to TRY, LOCAL UNION No. 741