Ironworkers, Local Union No. 395

IRONWORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 395 International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 395 and Morse Electric Co., Inc. and Laborers' International Union of North America, Local No. 81. Case 25-CD-201 January 14, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING BY MEMBERS PENELLO, TRUESDALE, AND ZIMMERMAN This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by Morse Electric Co., Inc. (the Employer), alleging that International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 395 (Ironworkers), had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by en- gaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign cer- tain work to employees represented by Iron- workers rather than to employees represented by Laborers' International Union of North America, Local No. 81 (Laborers). Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer M. Julia McKenzie on August 21, 1980. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the conclusion of the hearing all parties waived their rights to oral argument and to file briefs. 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 Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER We find that the Employer, an Indiana corpora- tion with its principal place of business in South Bend, Indiana, is engaged as a contractor in the building and construction industry. During the past year, a representative period, the Employer pur- chased goods and materials from outside the State of Indiana having a value in excess of $50,000. We also find that the Employer is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 254 NLRB No. 49 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Iron- workers and Laborers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute On June 16, 1980,1 the Employer entered into an agreement with H. G. Christman Construction Co., Inc., a general contractor, to furnish all labor, ma- terial, and equipment necessary to perform electri- cal and fencing work at the Westville Correctional Center Institution, herein called Westville. The Employer assigned the work of erecting a chain link fence at Westville to employees represented by Laborers. Bruce McDougal, the Employer's supervisor at the Westville project, testified that in early July Ironworkers Representative D. L. Chidester told him that the Employer had to hire an employee represented by Ironworkers to help in erecting the chain link fence. 2 McDougal testified that he re- fused to do so because the Employer had assigned the work to laborers pursuant to the terms of its collective-bargaining agreement with Laborers. Thereafter, on July 29, McDougal again refused Chidester's demand that an employee represented by Ironworkers be hired to work on the erection of the fence. McDougal testified that Chidester then threatened to "shut the job down and picket the job or both." McDougal also testified that when Chidester telephoned him on the morning of July 30 and he (McDougal) reiterated that he would not use an employee represented by Ironworkers for the fence work, Chidester stated that he "was going to shut the job down and we will see if you put an Ironworker on there." McDougal testified that thereafter the employees represented by Iron- workers left the jobsite. Chidester testified that he did not recall telling McDougal that he would picket the jobsite. How- ever, he did testify that he told McDougal that if the latter could not assign an employee represented by Ironworkers to the fence work, he was not sure that he wanted any employees represented by Iron- workers to work at the Westville project. Chides- ter further testified that the employees represented by Ironworkers did not walk off the job on July 30 at his direction. Robert Agee, Jr., an official of one of the con- tractors that employed employees represented by ' All dates hereinafter refer to 1980. 2 Employees represented by Ironworkers were employed by other contractors at the Westville project 443 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ironworkers at the Westville jobsite, testified that it was his understanding that on July 30 the em- ployees left the jobsite because of inclement weath- er which rendered their duties of operating steel equipment hazardous. Agee also testified that on July 30 Chidester had assured him that employees represented by Ironworkers would not engage in a walkout. Further, Agee testified that the employees represented by Ironworkers returned to the jobsite and resumed their normal duties as soon as weather conditions permitted. B. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute involves the erection of a chain link fence at the Westville Correctional Center Institution, Westville, Indiana. C. The Contentions of the Parties During the hearing, the Employer contended that its employees represented by Laborers were entitled to perform the disputed work based on its collective-bargaining agreement with Laborers, its past practice and industry practice, economy and efficiency of operations, and certain jurisdictional agreements between the Unions involved. The Em- ployer further expressed its preference that its em- ployees represented by Laborers be awarded the work in dispute. Laborers agreed with the Employer's position that the disputed work was properly assigned to employees it represents. Laborers further contend- ed that statewide practice favors an award of the work in dispute to employees it represents. At the hearing, the representative for Iron- workers stated that it had no interest in the work at issue. While Laborers was satisfied with Iron- workers disclaimer, the Employer refused to accept it because Ironworkers would not reduce the dis- claimer to writing. D. Applicability of the Statute Section 10(k) of the Act directs the Board to hear and determine disputes which have given rise to charges under Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. Under this section, however, the Board's authority is limited to the resolution of actual disputes be- tween competing groups of employees. It is settled law that a jurisdictional dispute no longer exists when one of the competing unions or groups of employees effectively renounces its claim to the work. In this regard, we have held that the func- tion of a 10(k) proceeding evaporates when one of the unions renounces the work.3 As indicated above, the representative for Iron- workers disclaimed any interest by Ironworkers in the work at issue. There is no evidence that Iron- workers has engaged in conduct inconsistent with its disclaimer. Contrary to the Employer, we con- clude that in making this oral disclaimer, Iron- workers effectively has renounced its claim to the work involved in this proceeding. 4 We, therefore, find that there are currently no competing claims to the disputed work within the meaning of Sec- tions 8(b)(4)(D) and 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall quash the notice of hearing. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing issued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed. :' Local 1396. International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades. AFL-CIO (C. L. Wolff and Sons Painting Company). 246 NLRB No. 65 (1979), and cases cited therein. 4 Ibid. 444