Midwest Laboratory Installation

69 324 NLRB No. 16 LABORERS LOCAL 703 (MIDWEST LABORATORY INSTALLATIONS) 1 The notice of hearing defines the disputed work as ‘‘the clean- up work after installation of cabinets.’’ We have modified the defini- tion of the work in dispute to include handling and cleanup work involved with the installation process of cabinets and equipment, in accordance with the parties’ stipulation set forth above concerning the object of the Laborers’ picketing and in accordance with the way the case was litigated at the hearing. The evidence at the hearing showed that the dispute was not limited to cleanup work after the installation of cabinets. Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local Union 703 and Midwest Laboratory In- stallations, Inc. andCarpenters Local No. 44. Case 33–CD–391 July 28, 1997 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND HIGGINS The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed on December 17, 1996, by Midwest Laboratory Installations, Inc., the Employer, alleging that the Re- spondent, Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local Union 703 (Laborers), violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by en- gaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to employees represented by Carpenters Local No. 44 (Carpenters). A hearing was held February 14, 1997, before Hearing Officer Greg Ramsay. No briefs were filed. The National Labor Relations Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, finding them free from preju- dicial error. On the entire record, the Board makes the following findings. I. JURISDICTION The Employer, an Indiana corporation, with its of- fice located in Monticello, Indiana, is engaged in the business of the installation of science casework and equipment in Indiana and Illinois. During the past cal- endar year, it has purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Indiana. The parties stipu- lated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that the Laborers and Carpenters are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of Dispute The Employer is a subcontractor engaged in the in- stallation of science casework and equipment in Indi- ana and Illinois. Since 1988, the Employer has had a collective-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters covering its employees. In June 1996, the Employer started installing science cabinets and equipment at the University of Illinois Newmark Lab in Champaign-Ur- bana, Illinois. The Employer assigned the work to its employees who were represented by the Carpenters. This assignment was in accord with the Employer’s past award of similar work to employees represented by the Carpenters. On or about December 16–20, 1996, the Laborers picketed the jobsite with signs stating, ‘‘Midwest Lab- oratory Installations has no contract with L.L. # 703 Employees of other companies are asked not to refrain from working.’’ The parties stipulated that the Labor- ers picketed ‘‘because the handling and clean-up work involved with the installation process of cabinets and equipment was not assigned to members of Local Union 703’’; and this even though since on or about December 13, 1996, Midwest Laboratory Installations, Inc. assigned the disputed work to members of Car- penters Local No. 44 who are its employees. B. Work in Dispute The disputed work consists of the handling and cleanup work involved with the installation process of cabinets and equipment at the University of Illinois Newmark Lab in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.1 C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that the work in dispute should be assigned to employees represented by the Carpenters on the basis of the collective-bargaining agreement, past practice, employer preference, area and industry practice, skills, and economy and efficiency of operation. The Laborers contend that the disputed work should be assigned to employees it represents on the basis of industry practice. The Carpenters contend that the work in dispute should be assigned to employees it represents on the basis of the collective-bargaining agreement, past prac- tice, employer’s preference, area and industry practice, skills, and economy and efficiency of operation. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determination of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to be- lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been vio- lated and that the parties have not agreed on a method for a voluntary adjustment of the dispute. As discussed above, the record indicates that the La- borers picketed the jobsite with an object of forcing the Employer to assign the disputed work to employ- ees represented by the Laborers rather than to employ- VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00069 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.011 APPS10 PsN: APPS10 70 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ees represented by the Carpenters. The parties stipu- lated that there is no voluntary method of resolving the jurisdictional dispute which would be binding on all the parties. We find reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there exists no agreed method for voluntary adjustment of the dis- pute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the dispute is properly be- fore the Board for determination. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirm- ative award of disputed work after considering various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on common sense and experience, reached by balancing the factors in- volved in a particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). The following factors are relevant in making the de- termination of this dispute. 1. Collective-bargaining agreements As previously indicated, the Employer has a collec- tive-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters. It does not have an agreement with the Laborers. The Car- penters’ contract specifically covers the installation of cabinets and the handling of all materials involved in the installation. Inasmuch as the cleaning work in dis- pute includes cleaning work that is an integral part of the installation process, we find that this factor favors assigning the work in dispute to employees represented by the Carpenters. 2. Employer preference and past practice The Employer has consistently assigned the disputed work to its own employees represented by the Car- penters. The Employer’s president testified that he pre- ferred that the work in dispute be assigned to employ- ees represented by the Carpenters. We find that the Employer’s preference and past practice favor award- ing the work to employees represented by the Car- penters. 3. Area and industry practice Employees represented by the Carpenters have per- formed similar handling and cleanup work involved with the installation process of cabinets and instru- ments in other area locations. The Laborers’ field rep- resentative testified that employees represented by the Laborers have cleaned up cabinets after they have been installed and have helped unload office furniture, in- cluding cabinets. Inasmuch as employees represented by both unions perform some of the disputed work, we find that this factor favors neither group of employees. 4. Relative skills The Employer’s president testified that the cleaning of the cabinets requires a special skill. He stated that knowledge is needed on how to clean the cabinets, in- cluding what chemicals to use on what type of cabinet or counter top. If the cleaning is not done correctly, it could cause damage to the epoxy, caulking, and paint- ing involved in the installation of the cabinets. The La- borers maintain that no special skills are needed to per- form the disputed cleaning work. However, there is no evidence that employees represented by the Laborers have performed any cleaning work during the installa- tion process. Accordingly, we find that this factor fa- vors the assignment of the work in dispute to employ- ees represented by the Carpenters. 5. Economy and efficiency of operations The Employer does not employ Laborers. Further, the disputed work is only a very small portion of the amount of work being performed on the jobsite and it is done on an irregular basis for short periods of time. Consequently, the Employer would incur superfluous costs by hiring laborers to perform the work in dispute while retaining its carpenters to perform other tradi- tional work assignments. Accordingly, we find that this factor favors the assignment of work to employees rep- resented by the Carpenters. Conclusions After considering all the relevant factors, we con- clude that employees represented by the Carpenters are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying on the collective-bargaining agree- ment, the Employer’s preference and past practice, rel- ative skills, and economy and efficiency of operations. In making this determination, we are awarding the work to employees represented by the Carpenters, not to that Union or its members. The determination is limited to the controversy that gave rise to this pro- ceeding. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE The National Labor Relations Board makes the fol- lowing Determination of Dispute. 1. The employees of Midwest Laboratory Installa- tions, Inc. represented by Carpenters Local No. 44 are entitled to perform the handling and cleanup work in- volved with the installation process of cabinets and equipment at the University of Illinois Newmark Lab in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. 2. Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local Union 703 is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force Midwest VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00070 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.011 APPS10 PsN: APPS10 71 LABORERS LOCAL 703 (MIDWEST LABORATORY INSTALLATIONS) Laboratory Installations, Inc. to assign the disputed work to employees represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from this date, Laborers’ Inter- national Union of North America, Local Union 703 shall notify the Regional Director for Region 33 in writing whether it will refrain from forcing the Em- ployer by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsistent with this determination. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00071 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.011 APPS10 PsN: APPS10