Allied Workers Local 101

ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL 101 479 Allied Workers Local 101 and Leonard Samuels and Corp.; and Mose Roberts d/b/a Roberts Wrecking Walter Dickson and Northwestern Indiana Co., herein collectively called the Employers, to Building and Construction Trades Council and assign certain work to employees represented by Tonn and Blank, Inc.; Airo-Kool Cooling nd the Allied Workers rather than to employees repre- Heating, Inc.; Alen's Construction Co., Inc.; sented by Sheet Metal Workers International Asso- Area Sheet Metal, Inc.; Continental Electric ciation Local Union 303, AFL-CIO; Northwest In- ciation Local Union 303, AFL-CIO; Northwest In- Co., Inc.; Wm. Hayden Contractor; Maris Roof- d a ad V y D t C l o t ing Co., Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyramid Me- a n a a n d st c t o u n c o h e Unted chanical Contractor, Inc.; Security Co., Inc.; Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Chester Dicksons d/b/a Dicksons Electric Co.; Local 1005, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood U.S. Dismantlement Corp.; and Mose Roberts of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 697, AFL- d/b/a Roberts Wrecking Co. and Sheet Metal CIO; Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Union Workers International Association Local Union Local No. 6 of Indiana, AFL-CIO; United Union 303, AFL-CIO; Northwest Indiana and Vicinity of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, District Council of the United Brotherhood of Local Union No. 26, AFL-CIO; Local #433 of the Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1005, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood of Elec- icAFL-CIO; Intrkeratis Loal Union No. 697, A Elec- of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the CIO; Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Union United States and Canada (Union), AFL-CIO; Local No. 6 of Indiana, AFL-CIO; United Cement Masons Local Union No. 406 (O.P. & Union of Roofers Waterproofers and Allied C.M.I.A.), AFL-CIO; Glaziers' Local Union No. Workers, Local Union No. 26, AFL-CIO; Local 82 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and #433 of the United Association of Journeymen Paperhangers of America, Gary and Vicinity and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fit- (AFL-CIO); Laborers' Local No. 81, Laborers' In- ting Industry of the United States and Canada ternational Union of North America, AFL-CIO; (Union), AFLCIO; Cement Masons Local and Painters Local Union No. 8, Brotherhood of Union No. 406 (O.P. & C.M.I.A.), AFL-CIO; Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Glaziers' Local Union No. 82 of the Brother- hood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers Gary, Indiana, AFL-CIO, herein collectively re- of America, Gary and Vicinity (AFL-CIO); La- ferred to as affiliates of the Chargig Party. borers' Local No. 81, Laborers' International Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Union of North America, AFL-CIO; and Paint- Hearing Officer Robert Perkovich on August 11 ers Local Union No. 8, Brotherhood of Paint- and 12, 1981. All parties appeared and were afford- ers, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, ed full opportunity to be heard, to examine and Gary, Indiana, AFL-CIO. Case 13-CD-297 cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence December 3, 1981 bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Employers and the Charging Party filed briefs. DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the DISPUTE National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. ZIMMERMAN The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's This is proceeding under Section 10(k) of the rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- ing a charge filed by Northwestern Indiana Build- firmed. ing and Construction Trades Council, herein called Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the the Charging Party, alleging that Allied Workers Board makes the following findings: Local 101 and Leonard Samuels and Walter Dick- I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS son, herein called the Allied Workers, had violated THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Section 8(b)(4XD) of the Act by engaging in cer- The parties stipulated, and we find, that the gen- tain proscribed activity with the object of forcing eral contractor, an Indiana corporation, is engaged or requiring Tonn and Blank, Inc., the general con- in the business of general construction. During the tractor, and its subcontractors, Airo-Kool Cooling past 12 months, a representative period, the general and Heating, Inc.; Allen's Construction Co., Inc.; contractor purchased materials from outside the Area Sheet Metal, Inc.; Continental Electric Co., State having a value in excess of $50,000. There- Inc.; Wm. Hayden Contractor; Maris Roofing Co., fore, we find that the general contractor is engaged Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyramid Mechanical Con- in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) tractor, Inc.; Security Co., Inc.; Chester Dicksons and (7) of the Act. The parties further stipulated, d/b/a Dicksons Electric Co.; U.S. Dismantlement and we find, that the subcontractors are employers 259 NLRB No. 68 ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL 101 479 Allied Workers Local 101 and Leonard Samuels and Corp.; and Mose Roberts d/b/a Roberts Wrecking Walter Dickson and Northwestern Indiana Co., herein collectively called the Employers, to Building and Construction Trades Council and assign certain work to employees represented by Tonn and Blank, Inc.; Airo-Kool Cooling and the Allied Workers rather than to employees repre- Heating Inc.; Allen's Construction Co., Inc.; se n t e d by Sh e e t M e t a l Workers International Asso- Area Sheet Metal, Inc.; Continental Electric citoLcaUnn30,A -CONrhwsI- ^ ^w 1^^ !^^^ ^^^ "^~~~~iaton L oca Union 303, AFL-CIO; Northwest In- Co., Inc.; Wm. Hayden Contractor; Maris Roof- d and V D C n o th United ing Co., Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyramid Me- d la n a a n d V ic m ty D lst n c t C o u n c 11 o f th e United chanical Contractor, Inc.; Security Co., Inc.; Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Chester Dicksons d/b/a Dicksons Electric Co.; Local 1005, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood U.S. Dismantlement Corp.; and Mose Roberts of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 697, AFL- d/b/a Roberts Wrecking Co. and Sheet Metal CIO; Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Union Workers International Association Local Union Local No. 6 of Indiana, AFL-CIO; United Union 303, AFL-CIO; Northwest Indiana and Vicinity of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, District Council of the United Brotherhood of Local Union No. 26, AFL-CIO; Local #433 of the Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1005, Un i t e d Association of Journeymen and Apprentices AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood of Elec- o h lmigadPp itn nutyo h trical Workers Local Union No. 697, AFL - United States and Canada (Union), AFL-CIO;th CIO; Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen UnionUnited States and Canada (Union), AFL-CIO; Local No. 6 of Indiana, AFL-CIO; United Cement Masons Local Union No. 406 (O.P. & Union of Roofers Waterproofers and Allied C.M.I.A.), AFL-CIO; Glaziers' Local Union No. Workers, Local Union No. 26, AFL-CIO; Local 82 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and #433 of the United Association of Journeymen Paperhangers of America, Gary and Vicinity and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fit- (AFL-CIO); Laborers' Local No. 81, Laborers' In- ting Industry of the United States and Canada ternational Union of North America, AFL-CIO; (Union), AFL-CIO Cement Masons Local and Painters Local Union No. 8. Brotherhood of Union No. 406 (O.P. & C.M.I.A.), AFL-CIO; Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, laziers' Local Union No. 82 of the Brother-re- hood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers ferred t as affiiates ofthe Charing Party.el re of America, Gary and Vicinity (AFL-CIO); La- fe r re d t o a s affiliates of the Charging Party. borers' Local No. 81, Laborers' International Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Union of North America, AFL-CIO; and Paint- Hearing Officer Robert Perkovich on August 11 ers Local Union No. 8, Brotherhood of Paint- and 12, 1981. All parties appeared and were afford- ers, Decorators and Paperhangers of America,. ed full opportunity to be heard, to examine and Gary, Indiana, AFL-CIO. Case 13-CD-297 cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence December 3, 1981 bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Employers and the Charging Party filed briefs. DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the DISPUTE National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. ZIMMERMAN The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's This is proceeding under Section 10(k) of the rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- ing a charge filed by Northwestern Indiana Build- firmed. ing and Construction Trades Council, herein called Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the the Charging Party, alleging that Allied Workers Board makes the following findings: Local 101 and Leonard Samuels and Walter Dick- son, herein called the Allied Workers, had violatedI TH E BU S IN ESS O F T H E E MP LO Y ER S Section 8(b)(4XD) of the Act by engaging in cer- The parties stipulated, and we find, that the gen- tain proscribed activity with the object of forcing eral contractor, an Indiana corporation, is engaged or requiring Tonn and Blank, Inc., the general con- in the business of general construction. During the tractor, and its subcontractors, Airo-Kool Cooling past 12 months, a representative period, the general and Heating, Inc.; Alien's Construction Co., Inc.; contractor purchased materials from outside the Area Sheet Metal, Inc.; Continental Electric Co., State having a value in excess of $50,000. There- Inc.; Wm. Hayden Contractor; Maris Roofing Co., fore, we find that the general contractor is engaged Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyramid Mechanical Con- in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) tractor, Inc.; Security Co., Inc.; Chester Dicksons and (7) of the Act. The parties further stipulated, d/b/a Dicksons Electric Co.; U.S. Dismantlement and we find, that the subcontractors are employers 259 NLRB No. 68 ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL 101 479 Allied Workers Local 101 and Leonard Samuels and Corp.; and Mose Roberts d/b/a Roberts Wrecking Walter Dickson and Northwestern Indiana Co., herein collectively called the Employers, to Building and Construction Trades Council and assign certain work to employees represented by Tonn and Blank, Inc.; Airo-Kool Cooling and the Allied Workers rather than to employees repre- Heating Inc.; Allen's Construction Co., Inc.; se n t e d by Sh e e t M e t a l Workers International Asso- Area Sheet Metal, Inc.; Continental Electric citoLcaUnn30,A -CONrhwsI- ^ ^w 1^^ !^^^ ^^^ "^~~~~iaton Lcal Union 303, AFL-CIO; Northwest In- Co., Inc.; Wm. Hayden Contractor; Maris Roof- d and V D C n o th United ing Co., Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyramid Me- d la n a a n d V ic m ty D lst n c t C o u n c 11 o f th e United chanical Contractor, Inc.; Security Co., Inc.; Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Chester Dicksons d/b/a Dicksons Electric Co.; Local 1005, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood U.S. Dismantlement Corp.; and Mose Roberts of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 697, AFL- d/b/a Roberts Wrecking Co. and Sheet Metal CIO; Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Union Workers International Association Local Union Local No. 6 of Indiana, AFL-CIO; United Union 303, AFL-CIO; Northwest Indiana and Vicinity of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, District Council of the United Brotherhood of Local Union No. 26, AFL-CIO; Local #433 of the Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1005, Un i t e d Association of Journeymen and Apprentices AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood of Elec- o h lmigadPp itn nutyo h trical Workers Local Union No. 697, AFL - United States and Canada (Union), AFL-CIO;th CIO; Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen UnionUnited States and Canada (Union), AFL-CIO; Local No. 6 of Indiana, AFL-CIO; United Cement Masons Local Union No. 406 (O.P. & Union of Roofers Waterproofers and Allied C.M.I.A.), AFL-CIO; Glaziers' Local Union No. Workers, Local Union No. 26, AFL-CIO; Local 82 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and #433 of the United Association of Journeymen Paperhangers of America, Gary and Vicinity and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fit- (AFL-CIO); Laborers' Local No. 81, Laborers' In- ting Industry of the United States and Canada ternational Union of North America, AFL-CIO; (Union), AFL-CIO Cement Masons Local and Painters Local Union No. 8. Brotherhood of Union No. 406 (O.P. & C.M.I.A.), AFL-CIO; Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, laziers' Local Union No. 82 of the Brother-re- hood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers ferred t as affiiates ofthe Charing Party.el re of America, Gary and Vicinity (AFL-CIO); La- fe r re d t o a s affiliates of the Charging Party. borers' Local No. 81, Laborers' International Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Union of North America, AFL-CIO; and Paint- Hearing Officer Robert Perkovich on August 11 ers Local Union No. 8, Brotherhood of Paint- and 12, 1981. All parties appeared and were afford- ers, Decorators and Paperhangers of America,. ed full opportunity to be heard, to examine and Gary, Indiana, AFL-CIO. Case 13-CD-297 cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence December 3, 1981 bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Employers and the Charging Party filed briefs. DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the DISPUTE National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. ZIMMERMAN The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's This is proceeding under Section 10(k) of the rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- ing a charge filed by Northwestern Indiana Build- firmed. ing and Construction Trades Council, herein called Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the the Charging Party, alleging that Allied Workers Board makes the following findings: Local 101 and Leonard Samuels and Walter Dick- son, herein called the Allied Workers, had violatedI TH E BU S IN ESS O F T H E E MP LO Y ER S Section 8(b)(4XD) of the Act by engaging in cer- The parties stipulated, and we find, that the gen- tain proscribed activity with the object of forcing eral contractor, an Indiana corporation, is engaged or requiring Tonn and Blank, Inc., the general con- in the business of general construction. During the tractor, and its subcontractors, Airo-Kool Cooling past 12 months, a representative period, the general and Heating, Inc.; Alien's Construction Co., Inc.; contractor purchased materials from outside the Area Sheet Metal, Inc.; Continental Electric Co., State having a value in excess of $50,000. There- Inc.; Wm. Hayden Contractor; Maris Roofing Co., fore, we find that the general contractor is engaged Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyramid Mechanical Con- in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) tractor, Inc.; Security Co., Inc.; Chester Dicksons and (7) of the Act. The parties further stipulated, d/b/a Dicksons Electric Co.; U.S. Dismantlement and we find, that the subcontractors are employers 259 NLRB No. 68 ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL 101 479 Allied Workers Local 101 and Leonard Samuels and Corp.; and Mose Roberts d/b/a Roberts Wrecking Walter Dickson and Northwestern Indiana Co., herein collectively called the Employers, to Building and Construction Trades Council and assign certain work to employees represented by Tonn and Blank, Inc.; Airo-Kool Cooling and the Allied Workers rather than to employees repre- Heating Inc.; Allen's Construction Co., Inc.; se n t e d by Sh e e t M e t a l Workers International Asso- Area Sheet Metal, Inc.; Continental Electric citoLcaUnn30,A -CONrhwsI- ^ ^w 1^^ !^^^ ^^^ "^~~~~iaton Loal Union 303, AFL-CIO; Northwest In- Co., Inc.; Wm. Hayden Contractor; Maris Roof- d and V D C n o th United ing Co., Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyramid Me- d la n a a n d V ic m ty D lst n c t C o u n c 11 o f th e United chanical Contractor, Inc.; Security Co., Inc.; Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Chester Dicksons d/b/a Dicksons Electric Co.; Local 1005, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood U.S. Dismantlement Corp.; and Mose Roberts of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 697, AFL- d/b/a Roberts Wrecking Co. and Sheet Metal CIO; Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Union Workers International Association Local Union Local No. 6 of Indiana, AFL-CIO; United Union 303, AFL-CIO; Northwest Indiana and Vicinity of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, District Council of the United Brotherhood of Local Union No. 26, AFL-CIO; Local #433 of the Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1005, Un i t e d Association of Journeymen and Apprentices AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood of Elec- o h lmigadPp itn nutyo h trical Workers Local Union No. 697, AFL - United States and Canada (Union), AFL-CIO;th CIO; Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen UnionUnited States and Canada (Union), AFL-CIO; Local No. 6 of Indiana, AFL-CIO; United Cement Masons Local Union No. 406 (O.P. & Union of Roofers Waterproofers and Allied C.M.I.A.), AFL-CIO; Glaziers' Local Union No. Workers, Local Union No. 26, AFL-CIO; Local 82 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and #433 of the United Association of Journeymen Paperhangers of America, Gary and Vicinity and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fit- (AFL-CIO); Laborers' Local No. 81, Laborers' In- ting Industry of the United States and Canada ternational Union of North America, AFL-CIO; (Union), AFL-CIO Cement Masons Local and Painters Local Union No. 8. Brotherhood of Union No. 406 (O.P. & C.M.I.A.), AFL-CIO; Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, laziers' Local Union No. 82 of the Brother-re- hood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers ferred t as affiiates ofthe Charing Party.el re of America, Gary and Vicinity (AFL-CIO); La- fe r re d t o a s affiliates of the Charging Party. borers' Local No. 81, Laborers' International Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Union of North America, AFL-CIO; and Paint- Hearing Officer Robert Perkovich on August 11 ers Local Union No. 8, Brotherhood of Paint- and 12, 1981. All parties appeared and were afford- ers, Decorators and Paperhangers of America,. ed full opportunity to be heard, to examine and Gary, Indiana, AFL-CIO. Case 13-CD-297 cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence December 3, 1981 bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the Employers and the Charging Party filed briefs. DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the DISPUTE National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. ZIMMERMAN The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's This is proceeding under Section 10(k) of the rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- ing a charge filed by Northwestern Indiana Build- firmed. ing and Construction Trades Council, herein called Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the the Charging Party, alleging that Allied Workers Board makes the following findings: Local 101 and Leonard Samuels and Walter Dick- son, herein called the Allied Workers, had violatedI TH E BU S IN ESS O F T H E E MP LO Y ER S Section 8(b)(4XD) of the Act by engaging in cer- The parties stipulated, and we find, that the gen- tain proscribed activity with the object of forcing eral contractor, an Indiana corporation, is engaged or requiring Tonn and Blank, Inc., the general con- in the business of general construction. During the tractor, and its subcontractors, Airo-Kool Cooling past 12 months, a representative period, the general and Heating, Inc.; Alien's Construction Co., Inc.; contractor purchased materials from outside the Area Sheet Metal, Inc.; Continental Electric Co., State having a value in excess of $50,000. There- Inc.; Wm. Hayden Contractor; Maris Roofing Co., fore, we find that the general contractor is engaged Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyramid Mechanical Con- in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) tractor, Inc.; Security Co., Inc.; Chester Dicksons and (7) of the Act. The parties further stipulated, d/b/a Dicksons Electric Co.; U.S. Dismantlement and we find, that the subcontractors are employers 259 NLRB No. 68 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. Ac- On June 29 and 30, the Allied Workers picketed cordingly, we find that it will effectuate the pur- the jobsite and threatened to kill the general con- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. tractor's superintendent, John Monaco, and carpen- ter Paul Carpenter, respectively. Various witnesses II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED also testified about alleged acts of violence and The parties stipulated, and we find, that the physical threats by the picketers. According to Allied Workers and the Charging Party and its af- Benjamin Thomas, president of Airo-Kool, a sub- filiates are labor organizations within the meaning contractor, he told Samuels at some point during of Section 2(5) of the Act. the picketing that he would place members of the Allied Workers on the job if they were qualified 1II. THE DISPUTE and if they joined the appropriate union affiliate of A. The Work in Dispute the Charging Party. Samuels stated that he would send Thomas a list of qualified people but that it The parties stipulated, and we find, that the did not matter if they were members of the Allied work in dispute involves all construction rehabilita- Workers as long as they were black. Thomas never tion work, including but not limited to painting, received such a list from Samuels. Finally, Bruce drywall, bricklaying, roofing, plumbing, heating Meyer, the general contractor's project manager, and ventilating, demolition, carpentry, fencing, stated that he informed Samuels on August 1 that concrete work, electrical, and general labor work, the general contractor was not interested in partici- being performed on apartment buildings and apart- pating in a training program with the Allied Work- ments at the construction site known as the West ers because it had not been certified by the Labor Gary Redevelopment Project in Gary, Indiana. Department. Samuels replied that he wanted his B. Background and Facts of the Dispute members employed on the job and that inasmuch as the hiring situation had not been settled there The general contractor began work at the jobsite would be more demonstrations at the site the fol- in May 1981.' Both the general contractor and its lowing week subcontractors assigned the work in dispute to em- ployees who were represented by affiliates of the C. Contentions of the Parties Charging Party. Cleven Allen, owner of Allen's T E a t C P a Construction Co., Inc., one of the subcontractors, afiates c ed tha the ork in dispute was testified that on June 8 he was approached by the a tes n e n d t t th e w o r n Allied Workers president, Leonard Samuels, and proper assigned to employees represented by the business agent, Walter Dickson. They asked Allen Charging Party's affiliates on the basis of collec- if he would hire some of their members. Allen tive-bargaining agreements, the Employers' assign- stated that he had a contract with the Carpenters ments and past practices, area practice, relative Union, an affiliate of the Charging Party, and that skills and efficiency and economy of operation. he knew nothing about the Allied Workers. Allen The Alled Workers maintains that it represents asked them what his obligations would be if he black employees who have traditionally been dis- hired their members. Samuels and Dickson stated criminated against in the construction industry in that he could pay them what the other subcontrac- ary, and that inasmuch as its members are quali- tors paid. William Hayden, the owner of Wm. fled they should be assigned 51 percent of the dis- Hayden Contractor, one of the subcontractors, tes- puted work tified that on June 9 he was likewise approached D. Applicability of the Statute by Samuels and a couple of business agents for the Allied Workers. Samuels asked Hayden to hire Before the Board may proceed with a determina- some men, and Hayden replied that he did not tion of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the need any. Immediately thereafter, pickets arrived at Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable the jobsite with signs stating that "Tonn and Blank cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been Was Unfair to Local 101 and the People of Gary." violated and that the parties have not agreed upon The pickets and that Hayden should hire members a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis- of the Allied Workers. The parties stipulated that pute. the Allied Workers picketed the jobsite at least The record summarized above indicates that in from June 20 through June 24. Witnesses at the June and July the president and business agents of hearing testified about further picketing by the the Allied Workers demanded that the general con- Allied Workers on June 29 and 30 and on July 4. tractor and the subcontractors assign at least 50 percent of the disputed work to employees repre- All dates hereafter refer to 1981. sented by the Allied Workers. The demands were 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. Ac- On June 29 and 30, the Allied Workers picketed cordingly, we find that it will effectuate the pur- the jobsite and threatened to kill the general con- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein,.tractor's superintendent, John Monaco, and carpen- ter Paul Carpenter, respectively. Various witnesses ll. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED also testified about alleged acts of violence and The parties stipulated, and we find, that the physical threats by the picketers. According to Allied Workers and the Charging Party and its af- Benjamin Thomas, president of Airo-Kool, a sub- filiates are labor organizations within the meaning contractor, he told Samuels at some point during of Section 2(5) of the Act. the picketing that he would place members of the Allied Workers on the job if they were qualified 1i1. THE DISPUTE and if they joined the appropriate union affiliate of A. The Work in Dispute the Charging Party. Samuels stated that he would send Thomas a list of qualified people but that it The parties stipulated, and we find, that the did not matter if they were members of the Allied work in dispute involves all construction rehabilita- Workers as long as they were black. Thomas never tion work, including but not limited to painting, received such a list from Samuels. Finally, Bruce drywall, bricklaying, roofing, plumbing, heating Meyer, the general contractor's project manager, and ventilating, demolition, carpentry, fencing, stated that he informed Samuels on August 1 that concrete work, electrical, and general labor work, the general contractor was not interested in partici- being performed on apartment buildings and apart- pating in a training program with the Allied Work- ments at the construction site known as the West ers because it had not been certified by the Labor Gary Redevelopment Project in Gary, Indiana. Department. Samuels replied that he wanted his B. Background and Facts of the Dispute members employed on the job and that inasmuch as the hiring situation had not been settled there The general contractor began work at the jobsite would be more demonstrations at the site the fol- in May 1981.' Both the general contractor and its lowing week. subcontractors assigned the work in dispute to em- ployees who were represented by affiliates of the C. Contentions of the Parties Charging Party. Cleven Alien, owner of Alien's „,c ij../..* n- j- CharingPary. Ceve Alenowne ofAlln's The Employers and the Charging Party and its Construction Co., Inc., one of the subcontractors, t e contend a t th e wor i dipt a s testified that on June 8 he was approached by the aprpel a s s ign e d to e rer ese n by the Allied Workers president, Leonard Samuels, and P 0 ? s l w toe lyesepsnedbth Allid Wokerspreiden, Lenar Samelsand Charging Party's affiliates on the basis of collec- business agent, Walter Dickson. They asked Alien Partybagaffilga ts, the bos' assign- if he would hire some of their members. Alien mtive-bargan g agreements, the Employers, assign- stated that he had a contract with the Carpenters m ents an d pef Prc ices, area practice, relative Union, an affiliate of the Charging Party, and that T sk A l l s l and W ef f c k en rs mananstaomy of operation. he knew nothing about the Allied Workers. Alien T he A l l l ed Workers maintains that it represents asked them what his obligations would be if he bl ac k employees who have traditionally been dis- hired their members. Samuels and Dickson stated cGiminated against in the construction industry in that he could pay them what the other subcontrac- V' and th at su smuch b asigned p rcnote quali- tors paid. William Hayden, the owner of Wm. fi ed ^V sh oul d be signed 51 percent of the dis- Hayden Contractor, one of the subcontractors, tes- puted work. tified that on June 9 he was likewise approached D. Applicability of the Statute by Samuels and a couple of business agents for the Allied Workers. Samuels asked Hayden to hire Before the Board may proceed with a determina- some men, and Hayden replied that he did not tion of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the need any. Immediately thereafter, pickets arrived at A c t, it m u st be satisfied that there is reasonable the jobsite with signs stating that "Tonn and Blank cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been Was Unfair to Local 101 and the People of Gary." violated and that the parties have not agreed upon The pickets and that Hayden should hire members a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis- of the Allied Workers. The parties stipulated that pute. the Allied Workers picketed the jobsite at least The record summarized above indicates that in from June 20 through June 24. Witnesses at the J u n e and July the president and business agents of hearing testified about further picketing by the the Allied Workers demanded that the general con- Allied Workers on June 29 and 30 and on July 4. tractor and the subcontractors assign at least 50 percent of the disputed work to employees repre- *All dates hereafter refer to 1981. sented by the Allied Workers. The demands were 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. Ac- On June 29 and 30, the Allied Workers picketed cordingly, we find that it will effectuate the pur- the jobsite and threatened to kill the general con- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein,.tractor's superintendent, John Monaco, and carpen- ter Paul Carpenter, respectively. Various witnesses ll. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED also testified about alleged acts of violence and The parties stipulated, and we find, that the physical threats by the picketers. According to Allied Workers and the Charging Party and its af- Benjamin Thomas, president of Airo-Kool, a sub- filiates are labor organizations within the meaning contractor, he told Samuels at some point during of Section 2(5) of the Act. the picketing that he would place members of the Allied Workers on the job if they were qualified 1i1. THE DISPUTE and if they joined the appropriate union affiliate of A. The Work in Dispute the Charging Party. Samuels stated that he would send Thomas a list of qualified people but that it The parties stipulated, and we find, that the did not matter if they were members of the Allied work in dispute involves all construction rehabilita- Workers as long as they were black. Thomas never tion work, including but not limited to painting, received such a list from Samuels. Finally, Bruce drywall, bricklaying, roofing, plumbing, heating Meyer, the general contractor's project manager, and ventilating, demolition, carpentry, fencing, stated that he informed Samuels on August 1 that concrete work, electrical, and general labor work, the general contractor was not interested in partici- being performed on apartment buildings and apart- pating in a training program with the Allied Work- ments at the construction site known as the West ers because it had not been certified by the Labor Gary Redevelopment Project in Gary, Indiana. Department. Samuels replied that he wanted his B. Background and Facts of the Dispute members employed on the job and that inasmuch as the hiring situation had not been settled there The general contractor began work at the jobsite would be more demonstrations at the site the fol- in May 1981.' Both the general contractor and its lowing week. subcontractors assigned the work in dispute to em- ployees who were represented by affiliates of the C. Contentions of the Parties Charging Party. Cleven Alien, owner of Alien's „,c ij../..* n- j- CharingPary. Ceve Alenowne ofAlln's The Employers and the Charging Party and its Construction Co., Inc., one of the subcontractors, t e contend a t th e wor i dipte as testified that on June 8 he was approached by the aprpel a s s ign e d to e rer ese n by the Allied Workers president, Leonard Samuels, and P 0 ? s l w toe lyesepsnedbth Allid Wokerspreiden, Lenar Samelsand Charging Party's affiliates on the basis of collec- business agent, Walter Dickson. They asked Alien Partybagaffilga ts, the bos' assign- if he would hire some of their members. Alien mtive-bargan g agreements, the Employers, assign- stated that he had a contract with the Carpenters m ents an d pef Prc ices, area practice, relative Union, an affiliate of the Charging Party, and that T sk A l l s l and W ef f c k en rs mananstaomy of operation. he knew nothing about the Allied Workers. Alien T he A l l l ed Workers maintains that it represents asked them what his obligations would be if he bl ac k employees who have traditionally been dis- hired their members. Samuels and Dickson stated cGiminated against in the construction industry in that he could pay them what the other subcontrac- V' and th at su smuch b asigned p rcnote quali- tors paid. William Hayden, the owner of Wm. fi ed ^V sh oul d be signed 51 percent of the dis- Hayden Contractor, one of the subcontractors, tes- puted work. tified that on June 9 he was likewise approached D. Applicability of the Statute by Samuels and a couple of business agents for the Allied Workers. Samuels asked Hayden to hire Before the Board may proceed with a determina- some men, and Hayden replied that he did not tion of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the need any. Immediately thereafter, pickets arrived at A c t, it m u st be satisfied that there is reasonable the jobsite with signs stating that "Tonn and Blank cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been Was Unfair to Local 101 and the People of Gary." violated and that the parties have not agreed upon The pickets and that Hayden should hire members a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis- of the Allied Workers. The parties stipulated that pute. the Allied Workers picketed the jobsite at least The record summarized above indicates that in from June 20 through June 24. Witnesses at the J u n e and July the president and business agents of hearing testified about further picketing by the the Allied Workers demanded that the general con- Allied Workers on June 29 and 30 and on July 4. tractor and the subcontractors assign at least 50 percent of the disputed work to employees repre- *All dates hereafter refer to 1981. sented by the Allied Workers. The demands were 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. Ac- On June 29 and 30, the Allied Workers picketed cordingly, we find that it will effectuate the pur- the jobsite and threatened to kill the general con- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein,.tractor's superintendent, John Monaco, and carpen- ter Paul Carpenter, respectively. Various witnesses ll. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED also testified about alleged acts of violence and The parties stipulated, and we find, that the physical threats by the picketers. According to Allied Workers and the Charging Party and its af- Benjamin Thomas, president of Airo-Kool, a sub- filiates are labor organizations within the meaning contractor, he told Samuels at some point during of Section 2(5) of the Act. the picketing that he would place members of the Allied Workers on the job if they were qualified 1i1. THE DISPUTE and if they joined the appropriate union affiliate of A. The Work in Dispute the Charging Party. Samuels stated that he would send Thomas a list of qualified people but that it The parties stipulated, and we find, that the did not matter if they were members of the Allied work in dispute involves all construction rehabilita- Workers as long as they were black. Thomas never tion work, including but not limited to painting, received such a list from Samuels. Finally, Bruce drywall, bricklaying, roofing, plumbing, heating Meyer, the general contractor's project manager, and ventilating, demolition, carpentry, fencing, stated that he informed Samuels on August 1 that concrete work, electrical, and general labor work, the general contractor was not interested in partici- being performed on apartment buildings and apart- pating in a training program with the Allied Work- ments at the construction site known as the West ers because it had not been certified by the Labor Gary Redevelopment Project in Gary, Indiana. Department. Samuels replied that he wanted his B. Background and Facts of the Dispute members employed on the job and that inasmuch as the hiring situation had not been settled there The general contractor began work at the jobsite would be more demonstrations at the site the fol- in May 1981.' Both the general contractor and its lowing week. subcontractors assigned the work in dispute to em- ployees who were represented by affiliates of the C. Contentions of the Parties Charging Party. Cleven Alien, owner of Alien's „,c ij../..* n- j- CharingPary. Ceve Alenowne ofAlln's The Employers and the Charging Party and its Construction Co., Inc., one of the subcontractors, t e contend a t th e wor i dipt a s testified that on June 8 he was approached by the aprpel a s s ign e d to e rer ese n by the Allied Workers president, Leonard Samuels, and P 0 ? s l w toe lyesepsnedbth Allid Wokerspreiden, Lenar Samelsand Charging Party's affiliates on the basis of collec- business agent, Walter Dickson. They asked Alien Partybagaffilga ts, the bos' assign- if he would hire some of their members. Alien mtive-bargan g agreements, the Employers, assign- stated that he had a contract with the Carpenters m ents an d pef pficenc an ar ea pcoomoo re l at i v e Union, an affiliate of the Charging Party, and that T sk A l l s l and W ef f c k en rs mananstaomy of operation. he knew nothing about the Allied Workers. Alien T he A l l l ed Workers maintains that it represents asked them what his obligations would be if he bl ac k employees who have traditionally been dis- hired their members. Samuels and Dickson stated cGiminated against in the construction industry in that he could pay them what the other subcontrac- V' and th at su smuch b asigned p rcnote quali- tors paid. William Hayden, the owner of Wm. fi ed ^V sh oul d be signed 51 percent of the dis- Hayden Contractor, one of the subcontractors, tes- puted work. tified that on June 9 he was likewise approached D. Applicability of the Statute by Samuels and a couple of business agents for the Allied Workers. Samuels asked Hayden to hire Before the Board may proceed with a determina- some men, and Hayden replied that he did not tion of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the need any. Immediately thereafter, pickets arrived at A c t, it m u st be satisfied that there is reasonable the jobsite with signs stating that "Tonn and Blank cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been Was Unfair to Local 101 and the People of Gary." violated and that the parties have not agreed upon The pickets and that Hayden should hire members a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis- of the Allied Workers. The parties stipulated that pute. the Allied Workers picketed the jobsite at least The record summarized above indicates that in from June 20 through June 24. Witnesses at the J u n e and July the president and business agents of hearing testified about further picketing by the the Allied Workers demanded that the general con- Allied Workers on June 29 and 30 and on July 4. tractor and the subcontractors assign at least 50 percent of the disputed work to employees repre- *All dates hereafter refer to 1981. sented by the Allied Workers. The demands were 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. Ac- On June 29 and 30, the Allied Workers picketed cordingly, we find that it will effectuate the pur- the jobsite and threatened to kill the general con- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein,.tractor's superintendent, John Monaco, and carpen- ter Paul Carpenter, respectively. Various witnesses ll. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED also testified about alleged acts of violence and The parties stipulated, and we find, that the physical threats by the picketers. According to Allied Workers and the Charging Party and its af- Benjamin Thomas, president of Airo-Kool, a sub- filiates are labor organizations within the meaning contractor, he told Samuels at some point during of Section 2(5) of the Act. the picketing that he would place members of the Allied Workers on the job if they were qualified 1i1. THE DISPUTE and if they joined the appropriate union affiliate of A. The Work in Dispute the Charging Party. Samuels stated that he would send Thomas a list of qualified people but that it The parties stipulated, and we find, that the did not matter if they were members of the Allied work in dispute involves all construction rehabilita- Workers as long as they were black. Thomas never tion work, including but not limited to painting, received such a list from Samuels. Finally, Bruce drywall, bricklaying, roofing, plumbing, heating Meyer, the general contractor's project manager, and ventilating, demolition, carpentry, fencing, stated that he informed Samuels on August 1 that concrete work, electrical, and general labor work, the general contractor was not interested in partici- being performed on apartment buildings and apart- pating in a training program with the Allied Work- ments at the construction site known as the West ers because it had not been certified by the Labor Gary Redevelopment Project in Gary, Indiana. Department. Samuels replied that he wanted his B. Background and Facts of the Dispute members employed on the job and that inasmuch as the hiring situation had not been settled there The general contractor began work at the jobsite would be more demonstrations at the site the fol- in May 1981.' Both the general contractor and its lowing week. subcontractors assigned the work in dispute to em- ployees who were represented by affiliates of the C. Contentions of the Parties Charging Party. Cleven Alien, owner of Alien's „,c ij../..* n- j- CharingPary. Ceve Alenowne ofAlln's The Employers and the Charging Party and its Construction Co., Inc., one of the subcontractors, t e contend a t th e wor i dipte as testified that on June 8 he was approached by the aprpel a s s ign e d to e rer ese n by the Allied Workers president, Leonard Samuels, and P 0 ? s l w toe lyesepsnedbth Allid Wokerspreiden, Lenar Samelsand Charging Party's affiliates on the basis of collec- business agent, Walter Dickson. They asked Alien Partybagaffilga ts, the bos' assign- if he would hire some of their members. Alien mtive-bargan g agreements, the Employers, assign- stated that he had a contract with the Carpenters m ents an d pef Prc ices, area practice, relative Union, an affiliate of the Charging Party, and that T sk A l l s l and W ef f c k en rs mananstaomy of operation. he knew nothing about the Allied Workers. Alien T he A l l l ed Workers maintains that it represents asked them what his obligations would be if he bl ac k employees who have traditionally been dis- hired their members. Samuels and Dickson stated cGiminated against in the construction industry in that he could pay them what the other subcontrac- V' and th at su smuch b asigned p rcnote quali- tors paid. William Hayden, the owner of Wm. fi ed ^V sh oul d be signed 51 percent of the dis- Hayden Contractor, one of the subcontractors, tes- puted work. tified that on June 9 he was likewise approached D. Applicability of the Statute by Samuels and a couple of business agents for the Allied Workers. Samuels asked Hayden to hire Before the Board may proceed with a determina- some men, and Hayden replied that he did not tion of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the need any. Immediately thereafter, pickets arrived at A c t, it m u st be satisfied that there is reasonable the jobsite with signs stating that "Tonn and Blank cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been Was Unfair to Local 101 and the People of Gary." violated and that the parties have not agreed upon The pickets and that Hayden should hire members a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis- of the Allied Workers. The parties stipulated that pute. the Allied Workers picketed the jobsite at least The record summarized above indicates that in from June 20 through June 24. Witnesses at the Ju n e and July the president and business agents of hearing testified about further picketing by the the Allied Workers demanded that the general con- Allied Workers on June 29 and 30 and on July 4. tractor and the subcontractors assign at least 50 percent of the disputed work to employees repre- *All dates hereafter refer to 1981. sented by the Allied Workers. The demands were ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL 101 481 refused, and the Allied Workers picketed the pro- practices favor awarding the work to employees ject and engaged in threats in furtherance of the represented by the affiliates of the Charging Party. demands. The parties have stipulated that no method existed for voluntarily resolving the dis- 3. Area practice pute. The evidence indicates that approximately 99.9 Based on the foregoing, we find that there is rea- percent of the construction work in the Gary, Indi- sonable cause to believe that a violation of Section ana, area is union work and that all of the union 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there is no work is performed by affiliates of the Charging agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment Party. Consequently, we find that the factor of of the work dispute within the meaning of Section area practice favors awarding the work in dispute 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that this to employees represented by the affiliates of the dispute is properly before the Board for determina- Charging Party. tion. 4. Relative skills E. Merits ofthe Dispute The record discloses that the rehabilitation work Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to being done at the project by the various trades re- make an affirmative award of disputed work after quires greater skill than a regular construction job giving due consideration to various factors. 2 The which begins from the ground up because of the Board has held that its determination in a jurisdic- selective replacement of materials and fixtures tional dispute is an act of judgment based on com- throughout the existing structures. Further, the monsense and experience reached by balancing project is a job issued by the Department of Hous- those factors involved in a particular case.3 ing and Urban Development and as such all ap- The following factors are relevant in making the prentices on the job are required to be members of determination of the dispute before us: an apprenticeship program approved by the De- 1. Certification and collective-bargaining partment of Labor. Each of the local craft unions agreements affiliated with the Charging Party has its own cer- tified apprenticeship program in which the requi- There is no evidence to show that the Allied site skills to perform the disputed work are taught. Workers or any of the affiliates of the Charging Although the Laborers' Union does not send its Party have been certified by the Board as repre- members through an apprenticeship program, those sentatives of employees performing the work in involved in the demolition work were selected by dispute. The general contractor and its subcontrac- the general contractor because of their skill and ex- tors, however, have collective-bargaining agree- perience in that area. In contrast, there is no evi- ments with the respective affiliates of the Charging dence to indicate that the Allied Workers members Party. Neither the general contractor nor any of its possess the skills necessary to perform all or any subcontractors have a collective-bargaining agree- part of the work in dispute. The Allied Workers ment with the Allied Workers. We therefore find president testified that it has a training program for that the relevant collective-bargaining agreements the construction trades but he was unable to de- favor awarding the work to employees represented scribe the program and was unsure of its scope and by the affiliates of the Charging Party. reach. Further, any of the Allied Workers training 2. The Employers' assignments and past programs which may exist are not certified. We practices find that this factor favors awarding the disputed work to employees represented by the affiliates of The general contractor and the subcontractors, the Charging Party. in accordance with their preference, assigned the work in dispute to employees represented by affili- 5. Efficiency and economy of operation ates of the Charging Party. Further, all of the rep- It appears from the record that employees repre- resentatives of the general contractor and the sub- ented by the affiliates of the Charging Party per contractors who testified stated that their consist- form their work efficiently and that many of the ent practice has been to assign such work to affili- subcontractors maintain permanent work crews ates of the Charging Party. Accordingly, we find which travel from job to job and work together for that both the Employers' assignments and past that both the Employers' assignments ad pt long periods of time. If any of the Employers are 'N.LR.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union. Local 1212, required to hire employees represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia Allied Workers, they will have to lay off present Broadcasting Systeml, 364 U.S. 573 (1961).employees. Accordingly, we find that the factors ' International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J., A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962) of efficiency and economy of operation also favor ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL 101 481 refused, and the Allied Workers picketed the pro- practices favor awarding the work to employees ject and engaged in threats in furtherance of the represented by the affiliates of the Charging Party. demands. The parties have stipulated that no3 A p method existed for voluntarily resolving the dis- 3 . A re a p1'^! 1'^ pute. The evidence indicates that approximately 99.9 Based on the foregoing, we find that there is rea- percent of the construction work in the Gary, Indi- sonable cause to believe that a violation of Section ana, area is union work and that all of the union 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there is no work is performed by affiliates of the Charging agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment Party. Consequently, we find that the factor of of the work dispute within the meaning of Section area practice favors awarding the work in dispute 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that this to employees represented by the affiliates of the dispute is properly before the Board for determina- Charging Party. tion. 4. Relative skills E. Merits ofthe Dispute,. . The record discloses that the rehabilitation work Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to being done at the project by the various trades re- make an affirmative award of disputed work after quires greater skill than a regular construction job giving due consideration to various factors. 2 The which begins from the ground up because of the Board has held that its determination in a jurisdic- selective replacement of materials and fixtures tional dispute is an act of judgment based on com- throughout the existing structures. Further, the monsense and experience reached by balancing project is a job issued by the Department of Hous- those factors involved in a particular case. 3'ing and Urban Development and as such all ap- The following factors are relevant in making the prentices on the job are required to be members of determination of the dispute before us: an apprenticeship program approved by the De- l. Certification and collective-bargaining partment of Labor. Each of the local craft unions agreements affiliated with the Charging Party has its own cer- tified apprenticeship program in which the requi- There is no evidence to show that the Allied site skills to perform the disputed work are taught. Workers or any of the affiliates of the Charging Although the Laborers' Union does not send its Party have been certified by the Board as repre- members through an apprenticeship program, those sentatives of employees performing the work in involved in the demolition work were selected by dispute. The general contractor and its subcontrac- the general contractor because of their skill and ex- tors, however, have collective-bargaining agree- perience in that area. In contrast, there is no evi- ments with the respective affiliates of the Charging dence to indicate that the Allied Workers members Party. Neither the general contractor nor any of its possess the skills necessary to perform all or any subcontractors have a collective-bargaining agree- part of the work in dispute. The Allied Workers ment with the Allied Workers. We therefore find president testified that it has a training program for that the relevant collective-bargaining agreements the construction trades but he was unable to de- favor awarding the work to employees represented scribe the program and was unsure of its scope and by the affiliates of the Charging Party. reach. Further, any of the Allied Workers training 2. The Employers' assignments and past programs which may exist are not certified. We practices find that this factor favors awarding the disputed The general contractor and the subcontractors, work to employees represented by the affiliates of The general contractor and the subcontractors, th Chareine Party. in accordance with their preference, assigned the work in dispute to employees represented by affili- 5. Efficiency and economy of operation ates of the Charging Party. Further, all of the rep- It appears from the record that employees repre- resentatives of the general contractor and the sub- sented by the affiliates of the Charging Party per- contractors who testified stated that their consist- form their work efficiently and that many of the ent practice has been to assign such work to affili- subcontractors maintain permanent work crews ates of the Charging Party . A c c o r din g ly , w e fi n d which travel from job to job and work together for that both the Employers' assignments and past , .-. 1 that boththeEmployers' assignmt along periods of time. If any of the Employers are IN.L R.B. v. Radio < Televiion Broadcast Engineers Union. Local 1212. required to hire employees represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia Allied Workers, they will have to lay off present Broadcasting system), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). employees. Accordingly, we find that the factors I International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743. AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962), of efficiency and economy of operation also favor ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL 101 481 refused, and the Allied Workers picketed the pro- practices favor awarding the work to employees ject and engaged in threats in furtherance of the represented by the affiliates of the Charging Party. demands. The parties have stipulated that no3 A p method existed for voluntarily resolving the dis- 3 . A re a p1'^! 1'^ pute. The evidence indicates that approximately 99.9 Based on the foregoing, we find that there is rea- percent of the construction work in the Gary, Indi- sonable cause to believe that a violation of Section ana, area is union work and that all of the union 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there is no work is performed by affiliates of the Charging agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment Party. Consequently, we find that the factor of of the work dispute within the meaning of Section area practice favors awarding the work in dispute 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that this to employees represented by the affiliates of the dispute is properly before the Board for determina- Charging Party. tion. 4. Relative skills E. Merits ofthe Dispute,. . The record discloses that the rehabilitation work Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to being done at the project by the various trades re- make an affirmative award of disputed work after quires greater skill than a regular construction job giving due consideration to various factors. 2 The which begins from the ground up because of the Board has held that its determination in a jurisdic- selective replacement of materials and fixtures tional dispute is an act of judgment based on com- throughout the existing structures. Further, the monsense and experience reached by balancing project is a job issued by the Department of Hous- those factors involved in a particular case. 3'ing and Urban Development and as such all ap- The following factors are relevant in making the prentices on the job are required to be members of determination of the dispute before us: an apprenticeship program approved by the De- l. Certification and collective-bargaining partment of Labor. Each of the local craft unions agreements affiliated with the Charging Party has its own cer- tified apprenticeship program in which the requi- There is no evidence to show that the Allied site skills to perform the disputed work are taught. Workers or any of the affiliates of the Charging Although the Laborers' Union does not send its Party have been certified by the Board as repre- members through an apprenticeship program, those sentatives of employees performing the work in involved in the demolition work were selected by dispute. The general contractor and its subcontrac- the general contractor because of their skill and ex- tors, however, have collective-bargaining agree- perience in that area. In contrast, there is no evi- ments with the respective affiliates of the Charging dence to indicate that the Allied Workers members Party. Neither the general contractor nor any of its possess the skills necessary to perform all or any subcontractors have a collective-bargaining agree- part of the work in dispute. The Allied Workers ment with the Allied Workers. We therefore find president testified that it has a training program for that the relevant collective-bargaining agreements the construction trades but he was unable to de- favor awarding the work to employees represented scribe the program and was unsure of its scope and by the affiliates of the Charging Party. reach. Further, any of the Allied Workers training 2. The Employers' assignments and past programs which may exist are not certified. We practices find that this factor favors awarding the disputed The general contractor and the subcontractors, work to employees represented by the affiliates of The general contractor and the subcontractors, th Chareine Party. in accordance with their preference, assigned the work in dispute to employees represented by affili- 5. Efficiency and economy of operation ates of the Charging Party. Further, all of the rep- It appears from the record that employees repre- resentatives of the general contractor and the sub- sented by the affiliates of the Charging Party per- contractors who testified stated that their consist- form their work efficiently and that many of the ent practice has been to assign such work to affili- subcontractors maintain permanent work crews ates of the Charging Party . A c c o r din g ly , w e fi n d which travel from job to job and work together for that both the Employers' assignments and past , .-. 1 that boththeEmployers' assignmt along periods of time. If any of the Employers are IN.L R.B. v. Radio < Televiion Broadcast Engineers Union. Local 1212. required to hire employees represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia Allied Workers, they will have to lay off present Broadcasting system), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). employees. Accordingly, we find that the factors I International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743. AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962), of efficiency and economy of operation also favor ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL 101 481 refused, and the Allied Workers picketed the pro- practices favor awarding the work to employees ject and engaged in threats in furtherance of the represented by the affiliates of the Charging Party. demands. The parties have stipulated that no3 A p method existed for voluntarily resolving the dis- 3 . A re a p1'^! 1'^ pute. The evidence indicates that approximately 99.9 Based on the foregoing, we find that there is rea- percent of the construction work in the Gary, Indi- sonable cause to believe that a violation of Section ana, area is union work and that all of the union 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there is no work is performed by affiliates of the Charging agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment Party. Consequently, we find that the factor of of the work dispute within the meaning of Section area practice favors awarding the work in dispute 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that this to employees represented by the affiliates of the dispute is properly before the Board for determina- Charging Party. tion. 4. Relative skills E. Merits ofthe Dispute,. . The record discloses that the rehabilitation work Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to being done at the project by the various trades re- make an affirmative award of disputed work after quires greater skill than a regular construction job giving due consideration to various factors. 2 The which begins from the ground up because of the Board has held that its determination in a jurisdic- selective replacement of materials and fixtures tional dispute is an act of judgment based on com- throughout the existing structures. Further, the monsense and experience reached by balancing project is a job issued by the Department of Hous- those factors involved in a particular case. 3'ing and Urban Development and as such all ap- The following factors are relevant in making the prentices on the job are required to be members of determination of the dispute before us: an apprenticeship program approved by the De- l. Certification and collective-bargaining partment of Labor. Each of the local craft unions agreements affiliated with the Charging Party has its own cer- tified apprenticeship program in which the requi- There is no evidence to show that the Allied site skills to perform the disputed work are taught. Workers or any of the affiliates of the Charging Although the Laborers' Union does not send its Party have been certified by the Board as repre- members through an apprenticeship program, those sentatives of employees performing the work in involved in the demolition work were selected by dispute. The general contractor and its subcontrac- the general contractor because of their skill and ex- tors, however, have collective-bargaining agree- perience in that area. In contrast, there is no evi- ments with the respective affiliates of the Charging dence to indicate that the Allied Workers members Party. Neither the general contractor nor any of its possess the skills necessary to perform all or any subcontractors have a collective-bargaining agree- part of the work in dispute. The Allied Workers ment with the Allied Workers. We therefore find president testified that it has a training program for that the relevant collective-bargaining agreements the construction trades but he was unable to de- favor awarding the work to employees represented scribe the program and was unsure of its scope and by the affiliates of the Charging Party. reach. Further, any of the Allied Workers training 2. The Employers' assignments and past programs which may exist are not certified. We practices find that this factor favors awarding the disputed The general contractor and the subcontractors, work to employees represented by the affiliates of The general contractor and the subcontractors, th Chareine Party. in accordance with their preference, assigned the work in dispute to employees represented by affili- 5. Efficiency and economy of operation ates of the Charging Party. Further, all of the rep- It appears from the record that employees repre- resentatives of the general contractor and the sub- sented by the affiliates of the Charging Party per- contractors who testified stated that their consist- form their work efficiently and that many of the ent practice has been to assign such work to affili- subcontractors maintain permanent work crews ates of the Charging Party . A c c o r din g ly , w e fi n d which travel from job to job and work together for that both the Employers' assignments and past , .-. 1 that boththeEmployers' assignmt along periods of time. If any of the Employers are IN.L R.B. v. Radio < Televiion Broadcast Engineers Union. Local 1212. required to hire employees represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia Allied Workers, they will have to lay off present Broadcasting system), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). employees. Accordingly, we find that the factors I International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743. AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962), of efficiency and economy of operation also favor 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD awarding the work to employees represented by Local No. 6 of Indiana, AFL-CIO; United Union the Charging Party's affiliates. of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local Union No. 26, AFL-CIO; Local #433 of the Con~cl~usion United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices Upon the record as a whole, and after full con- of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the sideration of all relevant factors involved, we con- United States and Canada (Union), AFL-CIO; elude that employees who are represented by the Cement Masons Local Union No. 406 (O.P. & affiliates of the Charging Party are entitled to per- C.M.I.A.), AFL-CIO; Glaziers' Local Union No. form the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion 82 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and relying on the Employers' collective-bargaining Paperhangers of America, Gary and Vicinity agreements, the Employers' assignments and past (AFL-CIO); Laborers' Local Union No. 81, La- practices, area practice, relative skills, and efficien- borers' International Union of North America, cy and economy of operation. In making this deter- AFL-CIO; and Painters Local Union No. 8, Broth- mination, we are awarding the work in question to erhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers employees who are represented by the affiliates of of America, Gary, Indiana, AFL-CIO, are entitled the Charging Party, but not to those Unions or to to perform all construction rehabilitation work at their members. The present determination is limited the West Gary Redevelopment Project in Gary, to the particular controversy which gave rise to Indiana. this proceeding. 2. Allied Workers Local 101 and Leonard Sam- DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE uels and Walter Dickson are not entitled by means Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor proscribed Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of force or require Tonn and Blank Inc; Airo-Kool the foregoing findings and the entire record in this Cooling and Heating, Inc.; Allen's Construction proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board Co., Inc.; Area Sheet Metal, Inc.; Continental Elec- makes the following Determination of Dispute: tric Co., Inc.; Wm. Hayden Contractor; Maris 1. Employees of Tonn and Blank, Inc,; Airo- Roofing Co., Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyramid Kool Cooling and Heating, Inc.; Allen's Construc- Mechanical Contractor, Inc.; Security Co., Inc.; tion Co., Inc.; Area Sheet Metal, Inc.; Continental Chester Dicksons d/b/a Dicksons Electric Co.; Electrical Co., Inc.; Wm. Hayden Contractor; U.S. Dismantlement Corp.; and Mose Roberts Maris Roofing Co., Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyra- d/b/a Roberts Wrecking Co., to assign the disput- mid Mechanical Contractor, Inc.; Security Co., ed work to employees represented by that labor or- Inc.; Chester Dicksons d/b/a Dicksons Electric ganization. Co.; U.S. Dismantlement Corp.; and Mose Roberts 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision d/b/a Roberts Wrecking Co., who are represented and Determination of Dispute, Allied Workers by Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 101 and Leonard Samuels and Walter Dick- Local Union 303, AFL-CIO; Northwest Indiana son shall notify the Regional Director for Region and Vicinity District Council of the United Broth- 13, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, forcing or requiring the Employers, by means pro- Local 1005, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 697, AFL- the disputed work in a manner inconsistent with CIO; Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Union the above determination. 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD awarding the work to employees represented by Local No. 6 of Indiana, AFL-CIO; United Union the Charging Party's affiliates,.of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local Union No. 26, AFL-CIO; Local #433 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices Upon the record as a whole, and after full con- of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the sideration of all relevant factors involved, we con- United States and Canada (Union), AFL-CIO; elude that employees who are represented by the Cement Masons Local Union No. 406 (O.P. & affiliates of the Charging Party are entitled to per- C.M.I.A.), AFL-CIO; Glaziers' Local Union No. form the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion 82 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and relying on the Employers' collective-bargaining Paperhangers of America, Gary and Vicinity agreements, the Employers' assignments and past (AFL-CIO); Laborers' Local Union No. 81, La- practices, area practice, relative skills, and efficien- borers' International Union of North America, cy and economy of operation. In making this deter- AFL-CIO; and Painters Local Union No. 8, Broth- mination, we are awarding the work in question to erhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers employees who are represented by the affiliates of of America, Gary, Indiana, AFL-CIO, are entitled the Charging Party, but not to those Unions or to to perform all construction rehabilitation work at their members. The present determination is limited the West Gary Redevelopment Project in Gary, to the particular controversy which gave rise to Indiana. this proceeding. 2. Allied Workers Local 101 and Leonard Sam- DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE uels and Walter Dickson are not entitled by means Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor p Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of f o r c e o r require T o n n an d B l a n k , In c .; Airo-Kool the foregoing findings and the entire record in this Co o l ing a n d H eating, In c.; A l le n 's Construction proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board Co., I n c.; A re a S h e e t M e t a l , I n c .; Continental Elec- makes the following Determination of Dispute: t r ic Co., I n c .; Wm. Hayden Contractor; Maris 1. Employees of Tonn and Blank, Inc,; Airo- Roofing Co., Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyramid Kool Cooling and Heating, Inc.; Alien's Construc- Mechanical Contractor, Inc.; Security Co., Inc.; tion Co., Inc.; Area Sheet Metal, Inc.; Continental Chester Dicksons d/b/a Dicksons Electric Co.; Electrical Co., Inc.; Wm. Hayden Contractor; U.S. Dismantlement Corp.; and Mose Roberts Maris Roofing Co., Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyra- d / b / a Roberts Wrecking Co., to assign the disput- mid Mechanical Contractor, Inc.; Security Co., ed work to employees represented by that labor or- Inc.; Chester Dicksons d/b/a Dicksons Electric ganization. Co.; U.S. Dismantlement Corp.; and Mose Roberts 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision d/b/a Roberts Wrecking Co., who are represented and Determination of Dispute, Allied Workers by Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 101 and Leonard Samuels and Walter Dick- Local Union 303, AFL-CIO; Northwest Indiana son shall notify the Regional Director for Region and Vicinity District Council of the United Broth- 13, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, forcing or requiring the Employers, by means pro- Local 1005, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 697, AFL- the disputed work in a manner inconsistent with CIO; Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Union the above determination. 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD awarding the work to employees represented by Local No. 6 of Indiana, AFL-CIO; United Union the Charging Party's affiliates,.of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local Union No. 26, AFL-CIO; Local #433 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices Upon the record as a whole, and after full con- of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the sideration of all relevant factors involved, we con- United States and Canada (Union), AFL-CIO; elude that employees who are represented by the Cement Masons Local Union No. 406 (O.P. & affiliates of the Charging Party are entitled to per- C.M.I.A.), AFL-CIO; Glaziers' Local Union No. form the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion 82 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and relying on the Employers' collective-bargaining Paperhangers of America, Gary and Vicinity agreements, the Employers' assignments and past (AFL-CIO); Laborers' Local Union No. 81, La- practices, area practice, relative skills, and efficien- borers' International Union of North America, cy and economy of operation. In making this deter- AFL-CIO; and Painters Local Union No. 8, Broth- mination, we are awarding the work in question to erhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers employees who are represented by the affiliates of of America, Gary, Indiana, AFL-CIO, are entitled the Charging Party, but not to those Unions or to to perform all construction rehabilitation work at their members. The present determination is limited the West Gary Redevelopment Project in Gary, to the particular controversy which gave rise to Indiana. this proceeding. 2. Allied Workers Local 101 and Leonard Sam- DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE uels and Walter Dickson are not entitled by means Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor pr id b Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of f o r c e o r require T o n n an d B l a n k , In c .; Airo-Kool the foregoing findings and the entire record in this Co o l ing a n d H eating, In c.; A l le n 's Construction proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board Co., I n c.; A re a S h e e t M e t a l , I n c .; Continental Elec- makes the following Determination of Dispute: t r ic Co., I n c .; Wm. Hayden Contractor; Maris 1. Employees of Tonn and Blank, Inc,; Airo- Roofing Co., Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyramid Kool Cooling and Heating, Inc.; Alien's Construc- Mechanical Contractor, Inc.; Security Co., Inc.; tion Co., Inc.; Area Sheet Metal, Inc.; Continental Chester Dicksons d/b/a Dicksons Electric Co.; Electrical Co., Inc.; Wm. Hayden Contractor; U.S. Dismantlement Corp.; and Mose Roberts Maris Roofing Co., Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyra- d / b / a Roberts Wrecking Co., to assign the disput- mid Mechanical Contractor, Inc.; Security Co., ed w o r k t o employees represented by that labor or- Inc.; Chester Dicksons d/b/a Dicksons Electric ganization. Co.; U.S. Dismantlement Corp.; and Mose Roberts 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision d/b/a Roberts Wrecking Co., who are represented and Determination of Dispute, Allied Workers by Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 101 and Leonard Samuels and Walter Dick- Local Union 303, AFL-CIO; Northwest Indiana son shall notify the Regional Director for Region and Vicinity District Council of the United Broth- 13, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, forcing or requiring the Employers, by means pro- Local 1005, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 697, AFL- the disputed work in a manner inconsistent with CIO; Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Union the above determination. 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD awarding the work to employees represented by Local No. 6 of Indiana, AFL-CIO; United Union the Charging Party's affiliates,.of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local Union No. 26, AFL-CIO; Local #433 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices Upon the record as a whole, and after full con- of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the sideration of all relevant factors involved, we con- United States and Canada (Union), AFL-CIO; elude that employees who are represented by the Cement Masons Local Union No. 406 (O.P. & affiliates of the Charging Party are entitled to per- C.M.I.A.), AFL-CIO; Glaziers' Local Union No. form the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion 82 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and relying on the Employers' collective-bargaining Paperhangers of America, Gary and Vicinity agreements, the Employers' assignments and past (AFL-CIO); Laborers' Local Union No. 81, La- practices, area practice, relative skills, and efficien- borers' International Union of North America, cy and economy of operation. In making this deter- AFL-CIO; and Painters Local Union No. 8, Broth- mination, we are awarding the work in question to erhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers employees who are represented by the affiliates of of America, Gary, Indiana, AFL-CIO, are entitled the Charging Party, but not to those Unions or to to perform all construction rehabilitation work at their members. The present determination is limited the West Gary Redevelopment Project in Gary, to the particular controversy which gave rise to Indiana. this proceeding. 2. Allied Workers Local 101 and Leonard Sam- DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE uels and Walter Dickson are not entitled by means Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor p Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to Relations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of f o r c e o r require T o n n an d B l a n k , In c .; Airo-Kool the foregoing findings and the entire record in this Co o l ing a n d H eating, In c.; A l le n 's Construction proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board Co., I n c.; A re a S h e e t M e t a l , I n c .; Continental Elec- makes the following Determination of Dispute: t r ic Co., I n c .; Wm. Hayden Contractor; Maris 1. Employees of Tonn and Blank, Inc,; Airo- Roofing Co., Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyramid Kool Cooling and Heating, Inc.; Alien's Construc- Mechanical Contractor, Inc.; Security Co., Inc.; tion Co., Inc.; Area Sheet Metal, Inc.; Continental Chester Dicksons d/b/a Dicksons Electric Co.; Electrical Co., Inc.; Wm. Hayden Contractor; U.S. Dismantlement Corp.; and Mose Roberts Maris Roofing Co., Inc.; Mur's Electric Co.; Pyra- d / b / a Roberts Wrecking Co., to assign the disput- mid Mechanical Contractor, Inc.; Security Co., ed work to employees represented by that labor or- Inc.; Chester Dicksons d/b/a Dicksons Electric ganization. Co.; U.S. Dismantlement Corp.; and Mose Roberts 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision d/b/a Roberts Wrecking Co., who are represented and Determination of Dispute, Allied Workers by Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 101 and Leonard Samuels and Walter Dick- Local Union 303, AFL-CIO; Northwest Indiana son shall notify the Regional Director for Region and Vicinity District Council of the United Broth- 13, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, forcing or requiring the Employers, by means pro- Local 1005, AFL-CIO; International Brotherhood scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 697, AFL- the disputed work in a manner inconsistent with CIO; Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Union the above determination.