Local 292, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO (Gallagher-Kaiser Corporation)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 292, Sheet Metal Workers' International As- sociation, AFL-CIO and Gallagher-Kaiser Cor- poration and Local 25, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CD-414 September 30, 1982 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND HUNTER This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by Gallagher-Kaiser Corpora- tion, herein called the Employer, alleging that Local 292, Sheet Metal Workers' International As- sociation, AFL-CIO, herein called Sheet Metal Workers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in conduct with an object of forc- ing or requiring Gallagher-Kaiser to assign certain work to employees represented by it rather than to employees represented by Local 25, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Iron Workers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer A. Bradley Howell on May 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1982. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.' At the beginning of the hearing, the Iron Workers filed a motion to quash the notice of hearing on the ground that all of the parties to the jurisdictional dispute had agreed upon a method for the voluntary resolution of the dispute. After the hearing, the Iron Workers, the Sheet Metal Workers, and Barton-Malow filed briefs, and Gallagher-Kaiser and Associated Metal Fabricators & Engineers Association filed a joint brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hear- ing Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record in this case and hereby makes the fol- lowing findings: I Barton-Malow Company and Associated Metal Fabricators & Engi- neers Association, the multiemployer association that bargains with the Sheet Metal Workers on behalf of its individual contractor members, in- cluding Gallagher-Kaiser, appeared as Intervenors. 264 NLRB No. 62 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Gallagher-Kaiser Corporation, a Michigan cor- poration with its principal office and place of busi- ness in Detroit, Michigan, is engaged in industrial metal fabrication and erection construction. During the last calendar year, it purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di- rectly from suppliers located outside the State of Michigan and caused those goods and materials to be shipped to jobsites within the State of Michigan. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em- ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion herein. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Iron Workers and the Sheet Metal Workers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute consists of the installation of stack supports for approximately 20 exhaust stacks at the General Motors Assembly Division plant under construction in Orion Township, Michigan. Stacks are essentially large metal cylinders. They provide ventilation for a variety of booths and ovens in which bodies for cars and trucks are treat- ed for painting and then painted. The stacks extend from the booths and ovens through the roof of the plant. Stack supports anchor the stacks at the roof opening. B. Background and Facts of the Dispute Barton-Malow Company is the manager for the construction project. Barton-Malow has a policy that all contractors and unions on the job must ex- ecute project agreements. The project agreements contain provisions pertaining to union recognition, management rights, equal employment opportunity, procedures for resolving grievances and jurisdic- tional disputes, and apprenticeship. All contractors and all unions did in fact execute project agree- ments. Each of the at least 18 unions on the job signed only one agreement. Pursuant to Barton- Malow's policy, each union signed the project agreement that was executed by the first contractor on the job who employed employees represented by that union; the unions did not execute an agree- ment with more than one contractor. 424 LOCAL 292, SHEET METAL WORKERS Article VII of the project agreements provides that jurisdictional disputes be resolved by the Na- tional Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdic- tional Disputes, or by its successor. The National Joint Board was succeeded by the Impartial Juris- dictional Disputes Board (IJDB). The IJDB, how- ever, ceased resolving jurisdictional disputes on June 1. 1981.2 By letter dated May 7, 1981, Edward J. Carlough, general president of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, notified the Union's business agents of the IJDB's impend- ing demise. The letter stated in part that "the Im- partial Jurisdictional Disputes Board will no longer render decisions on any substantive issues involving jurisdictional disputes. The Board will continue on an interim basis for the purpose only of hearing and deciding procedural questions, such as change of assignment of work." The letter also urged the business agents to establish local boards for resolv- ing jurisdictional disputes. Accordingly, Adam Donaldson, the Sheet Metal Workers business agent, met with the executive board of the Greater Detroit Building and Con- struction Trades Council (GDBCTC) and suggest- ed the establishment of such a local board. The GDBCTC is an association that includes virtually all of the local unions in the Metropolitan Detroit area that belong to International unions affiliated with the Building and Construction Trades Depart- ment of the AFL-CIO. The Sheet Metal Workers and the Iron Workers both belong to the GDBCTC. One of the functions of the GDBCTC is to resolve jurisdictional disputes between its members. Representatives of Barton-Malow attended the executive board meeting at which Donaldson pre- sented his proposal. Barton-Malow subsequently drafted an amendment to the project agreement which provides that jurisdictional disputes at the construction site be resolved by the GDBCTC ex- ecutive board. In pertinent part, the amendment states: WHEREAS, the "National Joint Board" re- ferred to in Article VII, "JURISDICTIONAL PROCEDURES," subparagraph (1) and (4), is not now sitting to resolve jurisdictional dis- putes; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the above noted parties to amend the Agreement so as to revise Article VII, (1) and (4), 2 See Construction and General Laborers. Local Union No. 449. Con- necticut Laborers District Council, Laborers International Union of North ,nmerica. AFL-CIO (Miodern Acoustics. Inc). 260 NLRB 883 (1982) NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed that the Agreement is hereby amended and that Article VII, (1) and (4), revised to read as follows: (1) . . . The parties hereto contemplate the establishment of the Joint Disputes Board Of The Building and Construction Trades Em- ployers In Wayne, Oakland And Macomb Counties And Detroit And Wayne, Oakland And Macomb Counties Building And Con- struction Trades Council For Its Affiliates. At such times as said Joint Dispute Board is established and functioning it will then con- stitute and be the successor to the National Joint Board as referred to herein above. (4) In the event no resolution is possible then the Joint Dispute Board referred to in (1) above, or if it is not rendering decisions at the time, then the Detroit Building and Construction Trades Council Executive Board, shall resolve the issue and its deter- mination shall be final and binding on all parties. Jack Wood, secretary manager of the GDBCTC, reviewed and approved the amendment. The local joint board contemplated by the amendment, the Joint Disputes Board of the Building and Construc- tion Trades Employers in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties and Detroit and Wayne, Oak- land and Macomb Counties Building and Construc- tion Trades Council for its Affiliates, was never es- tablished. A meeting to execute a project agreement and amendment was held on July 30, 1981, at the office of Haden-Schweitzer Corporation, the first con- tractor on the project who employed employees represented by the Sheet Metal Workers. Floyd Wieland, a labor relations consultant, represented Barton-Malow, Richard Johnston, Haden- Schweitzer's treasurer, represented Haden-Schweit- zer, and John Shoemaker, president of the Sheet Metal Workers, represented the Sheet Metal Work- ers. Prior to this meeting, Wieland had told the at- torney for the Sheet Metal Workers that all con- tractors, or all contractors who employed members of the Sheet Metal Workers, would be required to sign the project agreement and amendment. Shoe- maker indicated at the meeting that he did not be- lieve that the Iron Workers would sign a project agreement and an amendment. He then executed the project agreement and amendment on behalf of the Sheet Metal Workers. Shoemaker said that he expected that every contractor doing the same work as Haden-Schweitzer or employing members of the Sheet Metal Workers would also sign 425 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD project agreements. Johnston and Wieland also ex- ecuted the project agreement and the amendment at the meeting. Contractors that employed employees represent- ed by the Sheet Metal Workers who came onto the job subsequent to Haden-Schweitzer signed the amendment, as well as the project agreement. On approximately September 8, 1981, John J. Ka- minski, vice president of Gallagher-Kaiser, execut- ed a project agreement and an amendment on behalf of Gallagher-Kaiser. Kaminski mailed both documents with a cover letter to Barton-Malow. The cover letter stated in part that the agreement was executed "with the understanding and on the condition that our local labor agreement shall pre- vail wherein areas of disagreement of terms occur." Wieland then countersigned the amendment. No one signed this particular amendment on behalf of the Sheet Metal Workers. This was because Barton-Malow only required that each union sign the amendment that was executed by the first con- tractor on the project who employed employees represented by that union. The Sheet Metal Work- ers was, however, requested to execute other amendments with other contractors who employed employees represented by the Sheet Metal Work- ers. It declined to do so because other unions would not execute the amendment. Wieland testi- fied that 13 unions signed the amendment, and that, to the best of his recollection, only 5 unions, in- cluding the Iron Workers, did not sign. The Iron Workers did not execute the amendment because it did not receive approval to do so from its Interna- tional union.3 Each of the unions that did sign the amendment did so only once; they did not sign an amendment for each individual contractor. Con- tractors that did not employ employees represented by the Sheet Metal Workers did not sign the amendment. On January 26, 1982, a meeting was held to assign work included in Gallagher-Kaiser's con- tract with Barton-Malow. Harold Cooper, the Iron Workers vice president and business agent, and Sheet Metal Workers President Shoemaker were both present. Gallagher-Kaiser assigned the stack support installation to the Sheet Metal Workers. Cooper protested this assignment. At the end of the meeting, he told Shoemaker that he would take the matter to the GDBCTC executive board. Shoe- maker replied, "Take it." The next day, Shoemaker sent a mailgram to the Sheet Metal Workers' Inter- national Association in which he requested its as- ' The Iron Workers has nevertheless participated in jurisdictional dis- pute hearings before the GDBCTC executive board. The board has di- rected that work be assigned to other unions on two occasions. sistance in settling the dispute with the Iron Work- ers. Pursuant to Cooper's request, the executive board heard and decided the dispute on February 2, 1982. The board awarded the work to the Iron Workers. Shoemaker did not arrive until after the board had adjourned. He requested at that time, and again by letter dated February 23, 1982, that the board hold a rehearing regarding the work as- signment. In his letter, Shoemaker claimed that the executive board lacked jurisdiction over the dis- pute. He also maintained that the project agree- ment executed by the Sheet Metal Workers applied only to disputes between or among the three par- ties to that document; i.e., the Sheet Metal Work- ers, Barton-Malow, and Haden-Schweitzer. Shoe- maker pointed out that the Iron Workers did not sign any agreement, and mentioned that he had contacted the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and asked for its assistance in resolving the jurisdictional dispute. He also stated that the executive board's decision was incorrect on the merits. Shoemaker's request for a rehearing was granted. On March 2, 1982, the executive board again heard the matter. Shoemaker presented evi- dence and argued on behalf of the Sheet Metal Workers. The executive board addressed the merits of the dispute as well as Shoemaker's contention that his mailgram to the Sheet Metal Workers' In- ternational Association deprived the body of juris- diction. The executive board reaffirmed its original decision. Consequently, by letter dated March 11, 1982, Barton-Malow requested Gallagher-Kaiser to reas- sign the installation of the stack supports to the Iron Workers. By letter dated March 22, John Ka- minski, Gallagher-Kaiser's vice president, informed the Sheet Metal Workers that Gallagher-Kaiser would comply with the executive board's decision. In his letter, Kaminski explained that "[a]s a signa- tory to the project agreement, we [Gallagher- Kaiser] have no recourse and are changing our work assignment dated January 26, 1982, to comply with the board's decision." By letter dated April 6, 1982, Edward Carlough, president of Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, advised the IJDB of the dispute between the Sheet Metal Workers and the Iron Workers. The IJDB replied by letter dated April 7, 1982. In its letter, the IJDB directed Gallagher-Kaiser to reassign the disputed work to the Sheet Metal Workers. The letter stated in pertinent part that "Gallagher- Kaiser Corporation, subcontractor, is directed in accordance with the Procedural Rules and Provi- sions of the Plan for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry to proceed 426 LOCAl 242, SHEET METAL WORKERS with the disputed work in accordance with the original assignment which was to the sheet metal workers." Gallagher-Kaiser then confirmed to Barton-Malow, by letter dated April 22, 1982, that it had reassigned stack support installation to the Iron Workers on March 22, 1982. In a letter to Gallagher-Kaiser dated March 21, 1982, the Sheet Metal Workers threatened to go on strike if Gal- lagher-Kaiser permitted ironworkers to install the stack supports. C. Contentions of the Parties The Sheet Metal Workers maintains that there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary resolu- tion of its jurisdictional dispute with the Iron Workers. It claims that it is not bound by the deci- sion of the GDBCTC executive board, contending that the project agreement amendment that it ex- ecuted pertains only to jurisdictional disputes be- tween or among the three parties that signed that document: the Sheet Metal Workers, Barton- Malow, and Haden-Schweitzer. The Sheet Metal Workers points out that it has not signed an agree- ment with Gallagher-Kaiser for resolving jurisdic- tional disputes, and also that the Iron Workers never signed the project agreement amendment. With respect to the merits of the dispute, the Sheet Metal Workers argues that it should be awarded the installation of the stack supports on the basis of its collective-bargaining agreement, Gallagher-Kai- ser's preference, area practice, skill, and economy and efficiency of operation. Gallagher-Kaiser and Associated Metal Fabrica- tors also contend that there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the juris- dictional dispute, and, consequently, that none of the parties to the dispute are bound by the decision rendered by the GDBCTC executive board. Their argument that the Sheet Metal Workers is not bound essentially echoes the Sheet Metal Workers argument; i.e., the project agreement amendment executed by the Sheet Metal Workers pertains only to jurisdictional disputes between or among the three parties to that document. They further claim that the Sheet Metal Workers was never informed before it executed the project agreement amend- ment that execution of same would bind the Sheet Metal Workers to the terms of the amendment with respect to all contractors on the jobsite who em- ployed employees represented by the Sheet Metal Workers. With respect to the Iron Workers, Gal- lagher-Kaiser and Associated Metal Fabricators maintain that the Iron Workers never agreed to abide by decisions of the GDBCTC executive board, and refused to execute the amendment to the project agreement. They further argue that the Iron Workers collective-bargaining agreement pre- cludes it from entering into the project agreement amendment.4 They add that the Iron Workers deci- sion to bring the dispute before the executive board did not obligate it to comply with any decision rendered by the executive board. They claim that the executive board has no authority to enforce its awards, and that parties who appear before the board do not always comply with board decisions. Gallagher-Kaiser and Associated Metal Fabricators argue that Gallagher-Kaiser is not obligated to comply with the executive board decision because the Sheet Metal Workers did not sign the same project agreement and amendment that Gallagher- Kaiser signed. They maintain that those documents contemplate that three parties would sign them and, since the Sheet Metal Workers never signed, the obligations contained in them never became ef- fective. In addition, relying upon Gallagher-Kai- ser's cover letter that accompanied the project agreement and amendment it executed, they con- tend that Gallagher-Kaiser signed the project agreement and amendment with the condition that, if there were a conflict between the terms of those documents and the terms of the collective-bargain- ing agreement with the Sheet Metal Workers, the collective-bargaining agreement's terms would pre- vail. They maintain that the collective-bargaining agreement provides that installation of stack sup- ports must be assigned to employees represented by the Sheet Metal Workers. 5 Gallagher-Kaiser and Associated Metal Fabricators further claim that, even assuming that all of the parties are obligated to comply with proper executive board decisions, the executive board lacked jurisdiction in this case. They assert that the April 7, 1982, letter from the IJDB, which directed Gallagher-Kaiser to reassign stack support installation to the Sheet Metal Work- ers, deprived the executive board of jurisdiction. 6 4 The Iron Workers collective-bargaining agreement provides that the Iron Workers "shall not submit any dispute to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board." Since the GDBCTC execulive board adheres to rules and decisions of the IJDB, Gallagher-Kaiser and Associated Metal Fabri- cators argue that the Iron Workers would be in violation of its collective- bargaining agreement if it executed the project agreement amendment. s The collective-bargaining agreement provisions upon which they rely state in pertinent part: This agreement covers .. installation . . of all air-veyor systems and air handling systems regardless of material used including the setting of all equipment and all reinforcements in connection there- with ... No EMPLOYER shall subcontract or assign any of the work de- scribed herein which is to be performed at a job site to any contrac- tor, subcontractor, or other person or party who fails to agree in writing to comply with the conditions of employment contained herein . . 6 Their contention is based upon art. Ill of the constitution and bylaws of the GDBCTC, which provides that: Continued 427 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD They also maintain that the executive board lacks jurisdiction because it will not hear a dispute if one of the parties seeks assistance from its International union before the matter is formally brought before the board. They point out that the Sheet Metal Workers requested the assistance of its Internation- al union on January 27, 1982, several days before the executive board conducted its first hearing re- garding the work assignment. With respect to the merits of the dispute, Gallagher-Kaiser and Associ- ated Metal Fabricators contend that the original as- signments of stack support installation to employ- ees represented by the Sheet Metal Workers was proper on the basis of the Associated Metal Fabri- cators collective-bargaining agreement with the Sheet Metal Workers, Gallagher-Kaiser's prefer- ence, economy and efficiency, and area practice. Barton-Malow and the Iron Workers each ad- vance essentially the same arguments. They con- tend that the IJDB is moribund and thus its April 7, 1982, decision is not binding upon the parties to the dispute. They further contend that Gallagher- Kaiser and the Sheet Metal Workers are obligated to comply with the decision of the GDBCTC ex- ecutive board because they executed project agree- ment amendments, and that the Iron Workers is ob- ligated because it submitted the dispute to the ex- ecutive board. They maintain that the cover letter which Gallagher-Kaiser mailed along with the ex- ecuted copy of the project agreement and amend- ment does not serve to subordinate the terms of the amendment to those of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Sheet Metal Workers. They argue that the letter does not specify the collective- bargaining agreement to which it refers (Gallagher- Kaiser has collective-bargaining agreements with the Sheet Metal Workers and Iron Workers), that it is an attempt to modify unilaterally the project agreement amendment, and that Gallagher-Kaiser subsequently complied with the executive board's decision. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed to the determina- tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that the parties have no agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. For the reasons stated below, we The council shall have full autonomy over matters affecting any and all workmen engaged in said industry, when in conformity with the Constitution of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, and laws and decisions promulgated by said Depart- ment pursuant to that Constitution, and when in conformity with de- cisions and rulings of the present National Joint Board for Settle- ment of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Buildini and Construction In- dustry, or any successor thereto provided for by any plan or method of procedure adopted in the future by the Department for the Settle- ment of Jurisdictional disputes. find it unnecessary to pass upon the merits with re- spect to the proper award of the disputed work be- cause from the record it appears that all the parties involved in the instant proceeding agreed to be bound by a determination of the GDBCTC execu- tive board. The Sheet Metal Workers is bound by virtue of the project agreement amendment that it executed. In the amendment, it stipulated that the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes had ceased to resolve jurisdictional dis- putes. This stipulation reflects the fact that the IJDB, the successor to the National Joint Board, has been moribund since June 1, 1981.7 We there- fore reject the contention that the decision of the IJDB, announced by letter dated April 7, 1982, de- prives the GDBCTC of jurisdiction or is binding upon the parties to this dispute. The amendment also sets forth a procedure for resolving jurisdic- tional disputes. It provides that such disputes be settled by a board which was to be established in the Detroit metropolitan area, or, if the board were not established, by the GDBCTC executive board. The local board contemplated by the amendment was not established, and therefore the GDBCTC executive board had the authority to resolve the ju- risdictional dispute between the Sheet Metal Work- ers and the Iron Workers. We reject the contention advanced by the Sheet Metal Workers, Gallagher- Kaiser, and Associated Metal Fabricators that the amendment executed by the Sheet Metal Workers may serve only to resolve jurisdictional disputes between or among the three parties that signed the same amendment: Haden-Schweitzer, Barton- Malow, and the Sheet Metal Workers. We find that the amendment obligates the Sheet Metal Workers to comply with all awards rendered by the GDBCTC executive board in jurisdictional dis- putes in which the Sheet Metal Workers is a party. It is well established that the parties to a jurisdic- tional dispute need not sign the same document in order to be bound by an agreed-upon method for resolving the dispute.8 The amendment that the Sheet Metal Workers signed does not state that it is limited only to disputes involving the Sheet Metal Workers, Haden-Schweitzer, and Barton-Malow. Indeed, Barton-Malow's policy was to have each union sign the amendment only once when the first contractor on the job who employed employees represented by that union executed the amendment. 7 See Construction and General Laborers, Local Union No. 449. Con- necticut Laborers District Council. Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Modern Acoustics, Inc.). supra. s See, e.g., International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamen- tal Iron Workers, Local Union No. 25 (Pittsburgh Plate Glass), 125 NLRB 1035 (1959). 428 LOCAL 292, SHEET METAL WORKERS This is the same policy which was followed with respect to executing project agreements.9 Pursuant to this policy, all of the unions on the job in fact signed the project agreement only once. There were 13 unions that signed the amendment, while only 5 unions did not. The Sheet Metal Workers was presumably aware of Barton-Malow's policy. When Shoemaker executed the project agreement and the amendment on behalf of the Sheet Metal Workers, he expressed his expectation that other contractors on the job would also sign. Moreover, even if the project agreement amend- ment was somewhat ambiguous in this regard, we find that the Sheet Metal Workers is precluded from denying that it is bound by the decision of the GDBCTC executive board. When Harold Cooper, the Iron Workers vice president and business agent, told Shoemaker that he was going to take the dis- pute to the GDBCTC executive board, Shoemaker did not react as if this could not be done. Instead, Shoemaker replied, "Take it," thus evidently indi- cating that he was not opposed to having the ex- ecutive board resolve the dispute. More important- ly, Shoemaker did not object to the executive board's jurisdiction until after it had rendered its decision on February 2, 1982. Then, Shoemaker pe- titioned for a rehearing and presented the Sheet Metal Workers position at the rehearing on March 2, 1982. We are therefore constrained to find that the Sheet Metal Workers acknowledged the au- thority of the executive board to settle its dispute with the Iron Workers, and thus is bound by its de- cision. ' o 9 Our dissenting colleague attempts to call into question whether Barton-Malow had a policy of having each contractor and union execute only one copy of the project agreement and amendment. In this connec- tion, he quotes testimony by Barton-Malow's labor consultant, Floyd Weiland, that Gallagher-Kaiser executed a project agreement with both the Iron Workers and the Sheet Metal Workers. We do not find that this quotation is very persuasive. In contrast to this isolated assertion, Wei- land testified several times regarding Barton-Malow's policy. He testified that the unions were not asked to sign a project agreement with more than one contractor, and that each of the 13 unions that signed a project agreement amendment signed only one "blanket" amendment. Weiland also said that when a contractor is requested to execute the "documents," it is not informed of which unions have already signed. Weiland added that he did not tell John Kaminski, who executed the project agreement and amendment on behalf of Gallagher-Kaiser, that Sheet Metal Workers had previously executed a project agreement with Haden-Schweitzer. Moreover, Weiland was specifically asked whether a contractor that em- ploys employees represented by two unions signed the project agree- ments executed by each of those unions. Weiland answered, "I don't think that's come about." Finally, and most importantly, no project agreement executed by both Gallagher-Kaiser and the Iron Workers was entered into evidence to support the Weiland testimony quoted in the dis- sent Therefore, in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, in- cluding testimony by Weiland himself, we can only conclude that Wei- land misspoke when he indicated that Gallagher-Kaiser executed project agreements with both the Iron Workers and the Sheet Metal Workers '0 We reject the contention advanced by Gallagher-Kaiser and Associ- ated Metal Fabricators that the executive board was without authorty to make an award because Shoemaker had requested the assistance of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association in resolving the dispute with the Iron Workers Jack Wood, the secretary-manager of GDBCTC, The other two parties to the dispute are clearly bound by the executive board's decision. Gal- lagher-Kaiser is bound because it executed the project agreement amendment which provided that jurisdictional disputes be submitted to the GDBCTC executive board. " The Iron Workers is bound, even though it did not execute the amend- ment, because it submitted the dispute to the GDBCTC executive board for resolution. 2 The Iron Workers thus demonstrated its intention to be bound by the decision of the executive board.' 3 In addition, we note that the GDBCTC executive board has ruled against the Iron Workers in other jurisdictional disputes, and the record does not in- dicate that the Iron Workers failed to comply with the executive board's decision. Our dissenting colleague maintains that the Sheet Metal Workers was not obligated to submit this ju- risdictional dispute to the executive board of the GDBCTC, reasoning that the project agreement amendment that the Sheet Metal Workers executed is binding only upon the three parties that signed that particular document: the Sheet Metal Workers, Barton-Malow, and Haden-Schweitzer. The analy- sis put forth by our dissenting colleague is too cir- cumscribed. The project agreement, as the term suggests, is, by its very nature, applicable to the entire project. Accordingly, as our dissenting col- league even concedes, the project agreement is drafted in general terms so that it may be applied to all of the unions and contractors at the project. As mentioned previously, it contains provisions re- garding union recogniton, management rights, testified that the executive board will not hear a dispute if one of the par- ties to that dispute refers the matter to its International uniont He also testified, however, that it was unprecedented for a local union that re- ceived a work assignment to request assistance from its International union In addition. he said that the GDBCTC has no written rules or reg- ulations that apply to its adjudication of jurisdictional disputes. The ex- ecutive board ruled on the merits of the dispute on February 2. 1982. and it ruled on both the issue of its jurisdiction and again on the merits on March 2, 1982 The executive board, therefore. quite obhiously beliesed that it had jurisdiction to resolve this dispute In the absence of any clear rules that deprive the executive board ofjurisdiction. we will abide by its determination that it had jurisdiction. iI We reject the argument of Gallagher-Kaiser and Associated Metal Fabricators that the cover letter which Gallagher-Kaiser mailed along with the executed copy of the project agreement and amendment serves to subordinate the terms of the amendment to those of its collective-bar- gaining agreement with the Sheet Metal Workers. The letter is ambigu- ous, and may just as well refer to the Iron Workers collective-bargaining agreement as to the Sheet Metal Workers collective-bargaining agree- ment Also, it appears to be an attempt to modify unilaterally the project agreement amendment. a2 The contention of Gallagher-Kaiser and Associated Metal Fabrica- tors that the Iron Workers collective-bargaining agreement precludes it from submitting jurisdictional disputes to the GDBCTC executive board is incorrect. The collective-bargaining agreement actually provides that the Iron Workers shall not submit any jurisdictional dispute to the IJDB. 13 Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, International Union of Oper- ating Engineers AFL-CIO (Hansen'. Inc.), 199 NLRB 726 (1972); Local 16 Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International Union. 4FL-CIO (Building Trades Emplover .4ssocration of Long Island. Inc). 120 NLRB 837 (1958) 429 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD equal employment opportunity, procedures for re- solving grievances and jurisdictional disputes, and apprenticeship. The introductory paragraph refers to "all contractors and subcontractors performing work. on the Project site" and the "local Unions [emphasis supplied]." The amendment to the project agreement is similarly drafted in general terms. The nature of the project agreement and amendment, and the general terms of those docu- ments, is enough to put a signatory on notice that the documents apply to the entire project. The dis- sent claims that since the two documents contain signature lines for three parties, they are merely tri- partite contracts.14 This interpretation is inconsist- ent with the purpose, nature, and language of the agreements. The evidence that Barton-Malow had a policy of having each union execute a project agreement only once, when the first contractor who employed employees represented by the particular union signed, is overwhelming. Further, there is no docu- mentary evidence that even a single one of the many unions at the jobsite executed more than one project agreement or amendment. If the interpreta- tion of the amendment set forth by our dissenting colleague is correct, then there would not be any agreement for the entire project; there would in- stead be a series of individual agreements pertain- ing only to the unions and the contractors who just happened to have executed the same document. (This would be the project agreement and amend- ment signed when a contractor who first employed employees represented by each particular union began to work at the jobsite.) Those agreements apparently govern only a small portion of the work on the project. Therefore, we do not think that the dissent's analysis yields a sound interpretation of the project agreement amendment. Accordingly, we shall quash the notice of hear- ing issued herein. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing issued in this proceeding be, and it hereby is, quashed. MEMBER HUNTER, dissenting: Contrary to my colleagues, I would not find that the Sheet Metal Workers agreed to a method for the voluntary adjustment of jurisdictional disputes involving work assigned by Gallagher-Kaiser Cor- '" Weiland testified regarding the drafting of the "documents," and he explained why signature lines for both contractor and union appear on the project agreement and its amendment. He stated that this enabled Barton-Malow to submit a single, boilerplate document to either a con- tractor or a union: 'lwle had a common document that was offered both to contractors and to the union and we just copied it. That is a form." poration. Therefore, I would not quash the notice of hearing and I would resolve the case on its merits. The majority finds that the Sheet Metal Workers agreed to be bound by decisions of the executive board of the GDBCTC with regard to all jurisdic- tional disputes arising at the Orion project site when it executed both a project agreement and an amendment to that agreement's jurisdictional dis- putes section, between itself, Barton-Malow, and Haden-Schweitzer. In so doing, I believe the ma- jority has relied on inferences which are unsup- ported by the record and ignored solid evidence contrary to its position. My reading of the record evidence indicates that the Sheet Metal Workers bound itself to the amended jurisdictional disputes section only with regard to disputes which might arise due to assignments of work by Haden- Schweitzer or Barton-Malow. While the project agreement signed by the Sheet Metal Workers is drafted in general terms so as to be applicable to various subcontractors and unions at the Orion project, it is clear from the face of the document that each executed contract was intend- ed to be a tripartite contract between the construc- tion manager, the particular subcontractor, and the particular union. Thus, the last substantive para- graph of the agreement states: "This Agreement shall not be further amended unless agreed to be [sic] all parties signatory to this agreement, namely Barton-Malow, the Union and The Contractor." Also, the agreement's signature lines name only these three parties. No provision of the agreement indicates that by executing a single project agree- ment a party has agreed to be bound with respect to all work at the site, regardless of the identity of the other parties involved. Similarly, the amend- ment to the jurisdictional dispute section contains signature lines for the same three parties and does not, by its terms, bind the parties with respect to jurisdictional disputes involving employers or unions other than those signatory thereto.' 5 In addition, Barton-Malow's asserted policy of requiring each subcontractor and union to sign the project agreement and the amendment only once, thereafter considering them bound with respect to all other parties at the site, provides no support for a finding that the Sheet Metal Workers is bound with respect to all jurisdictional disputes on the "a The majority's reliance on the established principle that the parties to a jurisdictional dispute may agree to a method of voluntary adjustment by executing separate documents misses the mark. That principle obvi- ously depends on the fact that the separate documents cover the same work which may later be the subject of a jurisdictional dispute, as was the case in International Association of Bridge. Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No. 25 (Pittsburgh Plate Glass ), supra, relied on by the majority. 430 LOCAL 292, SHEET METAL WORKERS project. There is no evidence that the Sheet Metal Workers was apprised of this "policy" prior to its execution of the agreement and the amendment. Nor is there any evidence to support the majority's finding that the "Sheet Metal Workers was presum- ably aware of Barton-Malow's policy." More sig- nificantly, the record evidence raises serious ques- tions about the existence of the "policy." Thus, Barton-Malow's labor relations consultant, Wei- land, testified that he had Gallagher-Kaiser execute two project agreements, one each for the Sheet Metal Workers and the Iron Workers, "so that they are bound by the language with a union they are employing." Further, Sheet Metal Workers business manager, Donaldson, testified without contradiction that Barton-Malow requested that the Sheet Metal Workers execute several additional project agreements with other employers, subse- quent to the Haden-Schweitzer agreement. Finally, the Sheet Metal Workers conduct after it executed the Haden-Schweitzer agreement dem- onstrates that it did not consider itself bound with regard to other employees. Thus, on several occa- sions prior to the instant dispute, Sheet Metal Workers president, Shoemaker, specifically in- formed Weiland that the Sheet Metal Workers con- sidered the agreement limited to the three parties who had signed it. In addition, at his first opportu- nity to present arguments to the executive board, 6 Shoemaker contended, inter alia, that the Sheet Metal Workers was not bound to the executive board's decision with respect to work assigned by Gallagher-Kaiser since it had not signed an agree- ment with Gallagher-Kaiser.17 The same position was taken in the Sheet Metal Workers protest letter to Gallagher-Kaiser after the executive board's initial decision. For all of the above-noted reasons, I would find that the Sheet Metal Workers 16 The majority's reliance on the fact that Shoemaker did not raise the issue of the executive board's jurisdiction to decide Gallagher-Kaiser dis- putes until after the executive board had rendered its initial decision is misplaced since it is clear from the record that Shoemaker was prevent- ed, by inclement weather, from arriving at the meeting prior to the ex- ecutive board's decision. t7 Shoemaker's response, "Take it," to the statement that the Iron Workers intended to submit the jurisdictional dispute to the executive board is patently ambiguous. It could easily mean that Shoemaker consid- ered such a submission futile, since the executive board had no jurisdic- tion in his view. Given this ambiguity, Shoemaker's response provides no basis for the majority's findings that the Sheet Metal Workers is thereby precluded from denying that it was bound by the decisions of the execu- tive board did not agree to submit Gallagher-Kaiser jurisdic- tional disputes to the executive board of the GDBCTC and to be bound by decisions of that body. 18 I turn now to the merits of the jurisdictional dis- pute. The Sheet Metal Workers collective-bargain- ing agreement with Gallagher-Kaiser covers, inter alia, all work on "air-veyer systems and air han- dling systems," while Gallagher-Kaiser's contract with the Iron Workers covers work "traditionally" performed by ironworkers. The work in dispute clearly comes within the specific coverage of the Sheet Metal Workers, since stack supports are part of air-veyer systems. Therefore, I would find that the collective-bargaining agreements favor an award to employees represented by Sheet Metal Workers. The record reveals that the work in dispute con- sistently is performed by Sheet Metal Workers in the area and industry involved herein. In addition, Gallagher-Kaiser traditionally has assigned such work to its sheet metal workers and it did so ini- tially in the present instance. Thus, I would find that the factors of area and industry practice, and employer practice and preference favor an award of the work to the employees represented by the Sheet Metal Workers. The work in dispute constitutes a very small por- tion of the construction of the exhaust stacks. There is no dispute that the vast bulk of this con- struction work is properly assigned to sheet metal workers. Under these circumstances, I would find that economy and efficiency of operations would be enhanced by an award of the work to employ- ees represented by the Sheet Metal Workers. Since it appears that employees represented by both Unions possess the requisite skills to install the stack supports, I would find that this factor favors neither group of employees. Because nearly all of the factors traditionally considered by the Board favor an award of the work in dispute to employ- ees represented by the Sheet Metal Workers and the remaining factor is neutral, I would award the installation of the stack supports at the Orion project to the employees of Gallagher-Kaiser who are represented by the Sheet Metal Workers. is In view of my conclusion regarding the Sheet Metal Workers, I find it unnecessary to reach the question of whether the Iron Workers or Gal- lagher-Kaiser was bound to submit this dispute to the executive board. 431