Carpenters Local 1102 (International Contracting)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Millwrights Local 1102, United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and International Industrial Contracting Corpora- tion and Riggers Local 575, International Asso- ciation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CD-431 26 July 1984 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS Upon a charge filed by the Employer 19 May 1983, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint 18 April 1984 against the Respondent, Carpenters Local 1102 (Millwrights), alleging that the Respondent has en- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of hearing were duly served on the parties to this proceeding. The complaint alleges in substance that the Re- spondent, through its agents, violated the Act by threatening to shut down the Employer's job at the Chrysler Corporation's Outer Drive Manufacturing Center, Detroit, Michigan, about March or early April 1983 and about May 1983, and by picketing the Chrysler site from about 19 May until about 27 May 1983, with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign the work of moving heavy machinery from a temporary holding point to the point of final destination, and the assembly and final installation of the machinery to its members or to employees represented by it rather than to em- ployees who are not members of or are not repre- sented by the Respondent. The complaint further alleges that the Board, in its 29 March 1984 Deci- sion and Determination of Dispute,' which award- ed the disputed work and similar work performed by the Employer in any of the Michigan counties where both Local 575, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Riggers), and Millwrights claim juris- diction to employees represented by the Riggers, and that the Respondent, by letter dated 4 April 1984, notified the Regional Director for Region 7 that it would not comply with the Board's Deci- sion and Determination of Dispute. On 27 April 1984 the Respondent filed its answer in which it admitted all the factual allegations of the com- plaint, but asserted that the Board's Determination of the Dispute was erroneous because the Board I Carpenters Local 1102 (International Contracting), 269 NLRB 593 (1984). 271 NLRB No. 69 did not resolve issues of credibility and applied per- functory criteria to reach its decision. On 2 May 1984 the General Counsel filed a motion to transfer and continue the proceeding before the Board, for summary judgment, and for expedited handling of the aforesaid motions. The General Counsel submits, in substance, that the Re- spondent is solely seeking to test the validity of the Board's prior Decision and Determination of Dis- pute in this matter through this unfair labor prac- tice proceeding since the Respondent's answer admits all facts necessary to establish a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (iiXD) of the Act and raises no other issues which were not fully litigated in the prior 10(k) proceeding, and that the Respondent in its answer admits it will not comply with the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute. On 10 May 1984 the Board issued an order trans- ferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion for summary judg- ment should not be granted. The Respondent filed no response. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. On the entire record in this proceeding, includ- ing the record in the underlying 10(k) proceeding, 2 the Board makes the following Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, following a charge filed by the Employer alleging that the Re- spondent had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act, a hearing was held 25 July, 17 and 18 August, and 19 and 20 September 1983. On 29 March 1984 the Baord issued a Decision and De- termination of Dispute, finding that there was rea- sonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) had been violated by the Respondent and that there was no agreed-upon method for the volun- tary settlement of the dispute to which all parties were bound. Concluding, therefore, that it was not precluded from making a determination of the merits of the dispute within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) and Section 10(k) of the Act, the Board decided that the employees of the Employer, who are represented by the Riggers, were entitled to the work in dispute, rather than employees represented by the Respondent. In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent admits that it threatened and picketed the Employ- er with an object of forcing or requiring the Em- 2 The Board's taking of official notice of the record in the 10(k) pro- ceeding, and reliance thereon, is well settled. Plumbers Local 741 (Ashton Co.), 259 NLRB 944 fn 2 (1982), and cases cited therein. 414 CARPENTERS LOCAL 1102 (INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTING) ployer to assign the disputed work to employees represented by it and that it notified the Regional Director for Region 7 that it would not comply with the Decision and Determination of Dispute issued 29 March 1984, but asserts that the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute was decid- ed erroneously. The issues raised by the Respondent have been litigated previously in the underlying 10(k) pro- ceeding. Furthermore, the Respondent does not offer to adduce any newly discovered or previous- ly unavailable evidence, nor has it shown that spe- cial circumstances exist here. Accordingly, there is no issue which is properly triable in this proceed- ing. As all material issues have been decided previ- ously by the Board, there are no matters requiring a hearing. 3 Accordingly, the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. 1. JURISDICTION The Employer, a Michigan corporation and a member of the Michigan Cartagemen's Association, Heavy Haulers Division,4 maintains its principal office and place of business at 1500 Irving, Royal Oak, Michigan. The Employer is engaged in the moving and erection of heavy machinery. During the year ending 31 December 1983, which period is representative of its operations during all times ma- terial, the Employer, in the course and conduct of its business operations, had gross revenue in excess of $500,000. During the same period, the Employer performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in, and for various enterprises located in, States other than the State of Michigan. Chrysler Corporation, a Delaware corporation, maintains its principal office and place of business at 12800 Oakland Avenue, Highland Park, Michi- gan, and maintains other facilities throughout the United States and Canada, including the Outer Drive Manufacturing Center, Detroit, Michigan, the facility involved in this proceeding. During the year ending 31 December 1983, which period is representative of its operations during all times ma- terial, Chrysler Corporation, in the course and con- duct of its business operations, purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $1 million and 3 Although in its answer to the complaint the Respondent asserts that the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute was erroneous be- cause the Board, inter alia, did not resolve issues of credibility, the Re- spondent does not specify the issues of credibility to which it refers. In any event, were it appropriate to resolve credibility issues in a 10(k) pro- ceeding, it is clear that the Board's Decision and Determination of Dis- pute did not require, nor was it based on, resolutions of credibility, and that a hearing is not required in the instant proceeding. See Electrical Workers Local 3 (Mansfield Contracting Corp.), 206 NLRB 423, 424 fn. 4 (1973) 4 The Michigan Cartagemen's Association, Heavy Haulers Division, is a multiemployer bargaining association which, at the time of the 10(k) hearing, represented the Employer. caused said goods and materials to be transported to its Michigan facilities directly from points locat- ed outside the State of Michigan. Accordingly, we find that the Employer and Chrysler Corporation are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We further find that the Respondent and the Riggers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Facts of the Dispute At all times material herein, the Respondent and the Riggers have had a jurisdictional dispute con- cerning the work of moving heavy machinery from a temporary holding point to the point of final des- tination and the assembly and final installation of the machinery on the Employer's job at the Chrys- ler Corporation's Outer Drive Manufacturing Center, Detroit, Michigan. About March or early April 1983 and about May 1983 the Respondent threatened to shut down the Employer's job at the Chrysler Corporation's Outer Drive Manufacturing Center, and from about 19 May to about 25 May 1983 the Respondent picketed the Employer's job at the Chrysler Corporation's Outer Drive Manu- facturing Center with an object of forcing or re- quiring the Employer to assign the disputed work to its members or to employees represented by it. In doing so, the Respondent induced and encour- aged individuals employed by the Employer, Chrysler Corporation, and by other persons en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to per- form services, and threatened, coerced, and re- strained the Employer, Chrysler Corporation, and other persons engaged in commerce or in an indus- try affecting commerce with an object of forcing and requiring the Employer to assign the disputed work to the Respondent's members or to employ- ees it represents rather than to employees repre- sented by Riggers Local 575, International Associa- tion of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO. B. The Determination of the Dispute On 29 March 1984 the Board issued a Decision and Determination of Dispute (269 NLRB 593), finding that employees represented by the Riggers are entitled to perform the disputed work, and that the Respondent was not entitled by means pro- scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force 415 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or require the Employer to assign the disputed work to employees represented by it. C. The Respondent's Refusal to Comply On 4 April 1984 the Respondent's attorney, on behalf of the Respondent, wrote the Regional Di- rector for Region 7, stating: Millwrights Local 1102 believes the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute is seri- ously flawed and will not comply therewith. Instead, it intends to question the Decision in an appropriate Court of Appeals. On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record in this proceeding, we find, as described above, that the Respondent's conduct in seeking to force or require the assignment of the disputed work to its members or to employees represented by it rather than to employees represented by the Millwrights, and the Respondent's refusal to comply with the Board's Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act.5 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By inducing or encouraging individuals em- ployed by International Industrial Contracting Cor- poration, Chrysler Corporation, or any other per- sons engaged in commerce or in an industry affect- ing commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufac- ture, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, and by threatening, coerc- ing, or restraining International Industrial Contract- ing Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, or any other persons engaged in commcerce, or in an in- dustry affecting commerce, with an object of forc- ing or requiring International Industrial Contract- ing Corporation to assign the disputed work or similar work by International Industrial Contract- ing Corporation in any of the Michigan counties where both Riggers and Millwrights claim jurisdic- tion to employees represented by it rather than to employees represented by Riggers, and by failing and refusing to comply with the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act, we shall s Longshoremen ILA Local 1410 (Mobile Steamship Assn.), 242 NLRB 807. 809 fn. 5 (1979), and cases cited therein. order it to cease and desist and to take certain af- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Millwrights Local 1102, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Inducing or encouraging individuals em- ployed by International Industrial Contracting Cor- poration, Chrysler Corporation, or any other per- sons engaged in commerce or in an industry affect- ing commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufac- ture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, or threatening, coerc- ing, or restraining International Industrial Contract- ing Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, or any other persons engaged in commerce or in an indus- try affecting commerce, where, in either case, an object thereof is to force or require International Industrial Contracting Corporation to assign the work of moving heavy machinery from a tempo- rary holding point to the point of final installation, and the assembly and final installation of the ma- chinery, or similar work by International Industrial Contracting Corporation in any of the Michigan counties where both Riggers and Millwrights claim jurisdiction, to its members or to employees repre- sented by it rather than to employees represented by Riggers Local 575, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO. (b) Refusing to comply with the Board's Deci- sion and Determination of Dispute as set forth at 269 NLRB 593. 2. Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its business and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where no- tices to members are customarily posted. Reasona- I If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board." 416 CARPENTERS LOCAL 1102 (INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTING) ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 7 signed copies of such notice for posting by the Em- ployer, if willing, in places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals employed by International Industrial Contracting Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, or any other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry af- fecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufac- ture, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, or threaten, coerce, or re- strain International Industrial Contracting Corpora- tion, Chrysler Corporation, or any other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where, in either case, an object thereof is to force or require International Industrial Con- tracting Corporation to assign the work of moving heavy machinery from a temporary holding point to the point of final installation and the assembly and final installation of the machinery, at Chrysler Corporation's Outer Drive Manufacturing Center, Detroit, Michigan, or similar work by International Industrial Contracting Corporation in any of the Michigan counties where both we and Riggers Local 575, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL- CIO, claim jurisdiction, to members or to employ- ees represented by us rather than to employees rep- resented by Riggers. WE WILL NOT refuse to comply with the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute as set forth at 269 NLRB 593. MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL 1102, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO 417