UNITED ASSN. LOCAL 447 (RUDOLPH & SLETTEN)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 350 NLRB No. 33 276 United Association, Local 447, AFL–CIO and Ru- dolph & Sletten, Inc., Carpenters Union, Local No. 46 and International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, Local 340, AFL–CIO. Case 20– CD–738 July 23, 2007 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND WALSH The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed on January 12, 2007, by Rudolph & Sletten, Inc. (the Employer). It alleges that the Respondent, United Asso- ciation, Local 447, AFL–CIO (the Plumbers) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forc- ing the Employer to assign certain work to employees represented by the Plumbers rather than to employees represented by Carpenters Union, Local No. 46 (the Car- penters).1 A hearing was held on February 13 and 14, 2007, before Hearing Officer Daniel J. Owens. Thereaf- ter, the Employer, the Carpenters, the Plumbers, and the Electricians filed briefs in support of their positions. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find- ing them free from prejudicial error.2 On the entire re- cord, the Board makes the following findings. I. JURISDICTION The parties stipulated that the Employer, a California corporation with an office and place of business in Red- wood City, California, is doing business as a licensed general contractor, performing general construction work. During the 12-month period ending January 31, 2007, in conducting its business, the Employer purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of California for construction of the Roseville Kaiser Women’s and Children’s Center project. Accordingly, on the basis of the parties’ stipulation, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The parties also stipu- lated, and we find, that the Carpenters, the Plumbers, and 1 Although the charge alleged that the object of the proscribed activ- ity was to force the Employer to reassign the disputed work to employ- ees represented by the Plumbers, the focus of the hearing was whether the work should be reassigned to a composite crew consisting of em- ployees represented by the Plumbers and by the International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local 340, AFL–CIO (the Electricians). 2 We grant the Employer’s unopposed motion to correct the tran- script to substitute the word “remove” for the word “remember” at p. 13, line 5. the Electricians are labor organizations within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute This dispute involves the receiving, inventory, distri- bution, layout, and installation of headwall/headboard units in patient rooms at the Kaiser Women’s and Chil- dren’s Center in Roseville, California. The Employer is a general contractor on a project involving the construc- tion of maternity surgery suites, and pediatric and neona- tal intensive care units. The Employer’s work includes the installation of headwall units in patient rooms. Headwall units act as the headboard for patient beds and contain outlets for the electrical and medical gas systems. The headwall units are attached to the wall and are hooked up to the medical gas, electrical nurse call, and intercom systems. The Employer employs carpenters represented by the Carpenters. The Employer is signatory to the 2003–2008 multiemployer collective-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters through the Construction Employers Associa- tion. Airco Mechanical, Inc. is a subcontractor to the Employer on the project. Airco is responsible for con- necting the building’s piping that carries medical gas to the headwall units and for certifying the medical gas sys- tem. Airco has a collective-bargaining agreement with the Plumbers. Collins Electric is also a subcontractor to the Employer on the project. It is responsible for con- necting the headwall units to the building’s electrical system, and for certifying the function of the electrical system within the headwall units. Collins has a collec- tive-bargaining relationship with the Electricians. The Employer does not have a collective-bargaining relation- ship with either the Electricians or the Plumbers. The Employer assigned the disputed work, described below, to its own employees represented by the Carpenters. The typical wall-mounted headwall unit is received from the supplier’s truck by the Employer’s Carpenters- represented employees. Those employees inventory the units, check them for damage, and then distribute them to the patient rooms. The Carpenters-represented employ- ees provide layout for the backing plate, and after the walls have been framed, those employees attach the backing plate to the wall. Electricians-represented em- ployees employed by Collins and Plumbers-represented employees employed by Airco then rough in the electri- cal and piping components to the backing plate. Then “everyone will go away” and drywall is hung on the walls. Carpenters-represented employees are the first to return and mount the headwall case onto the backing plate. Plumbers-represented employees and Electricians- UNITED ASSN. LOCAL 447 (RUDOLPH & SLETTEN) 277 represented employees return next and make their con- nections to the headwall unit. Carpenters-represented employees then install various pieces of owner-furnished equipment onto the headwall rails. The procedure varies slightly for the different types of units installed on the project. The work in dispute does not include the rough- ing in of the electrical and piping components or the final connection of the headwall units to the electrical and medical gas systems of the hospital. That work is per- formed by employees represented by the Electricians and the Plumbers. Once Electricians-represented employees hook up the headwall unit to the interior electrical sys- tem, they are responsible for testing the system and certi- fying that the electrical systems are functioning properly. Plumbers-represented employees are responsible for cer- tifying the gas system once the headwall units are at- tached. The Employer assigned the disputed work, consisting of the handling of the headwall units and the mounting of them onto the wall prior to the final step of connecting the units to the electrical and gas systems, to its employ- ees represented by the Carpenters. On December 21, 2006, two business representatives from the Plumbers and the Electricians visited the Employer’s job trailer. They claimed that a composite crew consisting of em- ployees represented by the Plumbers and the Electricians should be performing the headwall unit work assigned to employees represented by the Carpenters. The Em- ployer’s senior project manager, Craig Jamison, ex- plained that the Carpenters claimed the work, that the Employer was obligated under its collective-bargaining agreement to assign the work to Carpenters-represented employees, and that the Employer was not authorized to reassign the work to other crafts. The next day, Jamison met with Carpenters’ local un- ion representative Michael Leung, who affirmed that the headwall unit work was covered under the Carpenters’ collective-bargaining agreement. Jamison asked Leung to contact the Plumbers and the Electricians to resolve the dispute. On January 3, 2007, Larry Cook, Airco’s vice-president of construction, was contacted by Plumb- ers business manager Harry Rotz. Rotz said that because he had not been able to resolve the headwall unit work issue, he was going to remove Airco’s plumbers from the project. Airco’s plumbers were removed from the pro- ject that afternoon and they did not return to the project until January 22, 2007. As a result of the work stoppage, the Employer filed the unfair labor practice charge against the Plumbers on January 12, 2007. B. Work in Dispute The notice of hearing describes the work in dispute as follows: All work involved in receiving, inventory, distribution, layout and installation of H-3, H-5, H-7, H-10, and H- 11 headwall/headboard units in patient rooms at the Kaiser Women’s and Children’s Center, including in- stallation of all components, backing plates, templates, covers and equipment such as shelves, medical equip- ment brackets, etc. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer argues that there are competing claims to the work, and that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Plumbers has violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. It further argues that the disputed work should be awarded to employees represented by the Carpenters based on collective-bargaining agreements, the Em- ployer’s current assignment of the work, preference, and past practice, industry and area practice, and economy and efficiency of operations. The Employer also con- tends that the employees represented by the Carpenters have the relevant skill and ability to perform the disputed work. The Carpenters contends that the work was properly and appropriately assigned by the Employer to its em- ployees represented by the Carpenters. The Carpenters urges the Board to uphold the assignment based on the Employer’s preference, past practice, and current as- signment, economy and efficiency of operations, area practice, relative skills and training, and 9(a) recognition. The Electricians contends that the majority of factors weigh in favor of assigning a composite crew of employ- ees represented by the Electricians and the Plumbers to perform the disputed work on headwall units that contain outlets for the hospital’s electrical and gas systems. The Electricians relies on training, skills, work involved, effi- ciency of operations, and area practice. It further argues that installation of the units by untrained individuals would increase safety risks. The Electricians also main- tains that the Employer has used a composite crew in the past and that no agreement between the Employer and the Carpenters covers this work. The Plumbers maintains that the work in dispute should be performed by a “competent crew of plumbers and electricians” because qualified individuals are re- quired to install medical gas and electrical systems. The Plumbers argues that State law requires the assignment of the work to certified installers and that only employ- ees represented by the Plumbers and the Electricians have the necessary training and certifications. The Plumbers suggests that the Employer is exposing itself to breach of contract claims from Kaiser and personal in- jury claims from patients if a patient is injured by con- taminated piping systems, escaped gases, and/or electro- cution, and that reassignment of the work would be to the DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 278 Employer’s benefit. The Plumbers also contends that the work in dispute is not covered by the Employer’s collec- tive-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters, and that efficiency and public safety outweigh the Employer’s preference. It argues that the Employer’s preference in the work assignment was “slight” and “subject to change” in light of the Employer’s willingness to let the three unions resolve the work assignment issue. 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 established that reasonable cause exists to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. This requires a finding that there is reasonable cause to believe that there are competing claims to disputed work between rival groups of employees and that a party has used proscribed means to enforce its claim. In addition, the Board must find that no method for voluntary adjustment of the dis- pute has been agreed upon. Bricklayers (Cretex Con- struction Services), 343 NLRB 1030 (2004). 1. Competing claims for the work The parties do not dispute that there are competing claims for the work. Two business representatives of the Plumbers and the Electricians claimed the work for a composite crew of employees represented by those Un- ions, and Carpenters representative Leung claimed the work for employees represented by the Carpenters. Moreover, the assignment of the work to employees rep- resented by the Carpenters establishes their claim to the work. Laborers Local 662 (McCarthy Brothers), 268 NLRB 926, 927 (1984). We find that there is reasonable cause to believe that there are competing claims to the disputed work between rival groups of employees. 2. Use of proscribed means The parties do not dispute that there is reasonable cause to believe that a party used proscribed means to enforce its claim to the work. The Plumbers engaged in a work stoppage from January 3 through 22, 2007, be- cause the Employer refused to reassign the work from Carpenters-represented employees to a composite crew of employees represented by the Plumbers and the Elec- tricians. This establishes reasonable cause to believe that the Plumbers has used proscribed means to enforce its claim to the work in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D). 3. No agreed-upon method for voluntary resolution of dispute The parties stipulated that there was no agreed-upon method for the voluntary resolution of this dispute that would bind all the parties. In light of the stipulation, we find that there is no agreed-upon method for the volun- tary resolution of this dispute. For these reasons, we find reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determi- nation. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirma- tive award of disputed work after considering various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1212 (Co- lumbia 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 ex- perience, reached by balancing the factors involved 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. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements There is no evidence that any union has been certified to represent employees who are performing the disputed work.3 The Employer does not have a collective-bargaining relationship with either the Plumbers or the Electricians. However, the Employer is signatory to a collective- bargaining agreement with the Carpenters that the Em- ployer contends mandates awarding the disputed work to its Carpenters-represented employees. The Employer argues that the disputed work is covered work under Sec- tion 4 of the 2003–2008 46 Northern California Counties Carpenters Master Agreement for Northern California, a multiemployer agreement between the Carpenters and its local affiliated unions and the Construction Employers Association. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of section 4, entitled “Work Covered,” provide: [1] All carpentry work on all construction, in- cluding, but not limited to, construction, erection, al- teration, repair, modification, demolition, addition or improvement of or to a building or any other struc- ture or construction. . . . . [3] Work in connection with new methods of construction or use of materials established or de- veloped during the term of this Agreement, and the use and application of tools, devices, metal or plastic studs or any substitute thereof, metal or plastic forms 3 Although the Carpenters states in its brief that the Carpenters is “the bargaining certified representative of Rudolph & Sletten’s em- ployees through a 9(a) recognition by Rudolph & Sletten,” there is no evidence of any Board certification. UNITED ASSN. LOCAL 447 (RUDOLPH & SLETTEN) 279 or slip form procedures, mechanical power driven or otherwise, customarily and regularly used by carpen- ters, any mechanical or technological substitutes thereof, whether continuously or intermittently and which are regarded tools of the carpentry trade. This shall include though not be limited to the use and operation of forklifts, platform lifts and operation of concrete chutes. While the Carpenters’ brief does not discuss the collective- bargaining agreement, Carpenters Business Agent Corey Streck testified that the disputed work is covered by Section 4, paragraph 3 set forth above. The Plumbers and the Electricians contend that the work in dispute is not covered by section 4, paragraph 3. That paragraph does not mention headwall units or any other hospital equipment, and was designed to encom- pass technological or material changes. The installation of a headwall unit is not a new method of construction or the use of materials developed during the term of the agreement. The Electricians further argues that the han- dling and installation of a headwall unit is not a “use and application of tools [etc.].” The Plumbers argues that nothing in that paragraph pertains to the installation of medical gas systems, and that medical gas systems are not a new method or material. The Carpenters’ collective-bargaining agreement does not specifically or expressly cover the work in dispute. The agreement, however, arguably covers the work. Paragraph 1 broadly covers all construction and modifi- cation of or additions to a building. Paragraph 3 broadly covers the use and application of tools customarily and regularly used by carpenters. Streck testified that the use of a “plumbing level, screw to the wall” would be en- compassed by the language covering “use and applica- tion of tools . . . customarily and regularly used by car- penters, . . . whether continuously or intermittently and which are regarded tools of the carpentry trade.” He further testified that the tools used by Carpenters- represented employees in performing the disputed work, i.e., “levels, drills, possibly lasers, hammers, punches,” are common tools of the carpenter trade. Further, both the Employer and the Carpenters are of the view that the work in dispute is covered by the Carpenters’ contract, the Employer’s employees covered by that contract are performing the disputed work, and the Employer has no collective-bargaining agreement with either the Plumbers or the Electricians. In Iron Workers Local 1 (Goebel Forming, Inc.), 340 NLRB 1158, 1161 (2003), a panel majority found that the collective-bargaining agreement factor favored awarding the work to Carpenters-represented employees where the employer’s contract with the Carpenters did not expressly refer to the work in dispute, but the parties to the contract, by their conduct, had shown their mutual intention to apply the contract to the work, and where the employer had no contract at all with the Iron Workers. The majority in Goebel stated that “[i]f one union has a contract which arguably supports that union’s claim, and the other union has no contract at all with the assigning employer, the Board will consider those facts in its deci- sion.” Id. See also Electrical Workers Local 134 (Pep- per Construction Co.), 339 NLRB 123, 125 (2003), in which the panel majority found that where the employer was signatory only to a CWA contract and the employees employed under that contract were performing the dis- puted work, the collective-bargaining agreement factor favored awarding the work to CWA-represented employ- ees even though the collective-bargaining agreement did not expressly refer to the work in dispute. Similarly here, the Employer’s collective-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters contains general language arguably covering the work in dispute, employees em- ployed under that agreement have been performing simi- lar work, the parties to the agreement consider the work in dispute to be covered by the agreement, and the Em- ployer has no collective-bargaining agreement with ei- ther the Plumbers or the Electricians. Under these cir- cumstances, as in Goebel and Pepper, we find that this factor favors awarding the disputed work to employees represented by the Carpenters.4 2. Employer preference and assignment The Employer prefers to assign the disputed work to Carpenters-represented employees and has assigned the work to its own employees represented by the Carpen- 4 Member Walsh finds that this factor does not favor awarding the work to either group of employees. In Goebel, Member Walsh would have found that the collective-bargaining agreement factor favored neither group of employees because the employer’s agreement with the Carpenters did not expressly or specifically refer to the work in dispute. In Member Walsh’s view, the fact that the employer had traditionally assigned similar work to Carpenters-represented employees did not lead to the conclusion that the contract clearly covered the disputed work. 340 NLRB at 1164–1165. Similarly, in Pepper, Member Walsh found that the fact that the employer applied a CWA contract to its employees who were assigned the work was insufficient to establish that the con- tract itself, which did not expressly refer to the disputed work, sup- ported an award of the disputed work to those employees. 339 NLRB at 125 fn. 7. Here, as in Goebel and Pepper, the Carpenters’ agreement does not expressly or specifically refer to the work in dispute, and at most only generally covers the disputed work. In these circumstances, Member Walsh finds that the Carpenters’ collective-bargaining agree- ment does not support awarding the work to Carpenters-represented employees, and thus that the collective-bargaining factor does not favor either group of employees. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 280 ters.5 We find that this factor favors an award of the dis- puted work to Carpenters-represented employees. 3. Employer past practice The Employer’s Senior Project Manager Craig Jami- son testified that for at least 14 years, the Employer has assigned hospital headwall unit installation work to Car- penters-represented employees. The Employer is using Carpenters-represented employees to install headwall units on several other projects, including Kaiser Santa Clara, Sutter Auburn Faith, and Los Angeles Medical Center. Jamison also testified that, to his knowledge, the Employer has never assigned this work to employees represented by either the Plumbers or the Electricians.6 The Carpenters introduced a letter dated January 25, 2007, from the Employer stating that the installation of headwall units (including the receiving, distribution, lay- out of the headwalls, installation of the backing plates and mounting of the headwall cover plates) has been assigned to Carpenters-represented employees “for all of the projects that have been undertaken in the last five years at the Kaiser Roseville Campus.” The letter ac- knowledged that the installation of the medical gas sys- tems and low and medium voltage systems has been as- signed to the Plumbers and the Electricians respectively. We find that this factor supports awarding the disputed work to Carpenters-represented employees. 4. Area practice7 The Employer and the Carpenters submitted testimony and assignment letters showing that in the Sacramento area, the mounting of headwall units has been assigned to employees represented by the Carpenters. The Electri- cians and the Plumbers also submitted testimony and a series of assignment letters showing that similar work has been assigned to composite crews consisting of em- ployees represented by the Plumbers and the Electricians. Because the area practice is mixed, we find that this fac- 5 Contrary to the Plumbers’ contention, the fact that at the time the Plumbers and the Electricians initially claimed the work the Employer suggested that the Unions attempt to resolve the dispute among them- selves does not diminish the Employer’s clear preference that the work be performed by its own Carpenters-represented employees. 6 The brief filed by the Electricians states, p. 20, citing Tr. 336:3–4, 18–22, that Electricians’ witnesses testified that the Employer had used a composite crew of electricians and plumbers in the past. The cited transcript page does not support that representation. The Plumbers presented testimony that the Employer is currently us- ing the Frank M. Booth Company, a plumbing contractor, to install headwall units at the Kaiser Medical Center Roseville and that carpen- ters are not used on that job. The Employer countered with testimony that Booth has not done a project on the Roseville Kaiser campus in the past 5 years. 7 The parties did not argue that industry practice differs from the evidence of area practice presented by the parties. tor does not support an award of the disputed work to either group of employees. 5. Relative skills and training Jamison testified that employees represented by the Carpenters “are trained for the proper layout and installa- tion of predominantly case work type units.” Streck tes- tified that Carpenters-represented employees are trained in cabinet installation in general, although they are not trained specifically in the installation of headwall units. They are trained to construct the metal stud framing and backing plates and have the skills to install the headwall unit itself. According to Streck, installing the headwall unit is similar to installing cabinetry and the skills in- volved are the same. The tools used in performing the work, such as levels, drills, lasers, hammers, and punches, are tools commonly used by carpenters, and Carpenters-represented employees are trained in the use of these tools in their apprenticeship program. There was no evidence of any problems caused by employees repre- sented by the Carpenters, and Jamison testified that the Carpenters had not made any mistakes installing the headwall units and that no safety issues have arisen as a result of the carpenters’ involvement in the installation of the headwall units. The Electricians and the Plumbers argue that Carpen- ters-represented employees are not qualified to perform the work. They maintain that the knowledge, experience, and skills of certified electricians and plumbers allow those employees to identify and prevent damage to the electrical and plumbing components, and that the han- dling and installation of the headwall units by untrained workers creates unnecessary safety risks. The Electricians receive training in the handling and installation of electrical equipment, including the type of electrical outlets in the headwall units. Courses in the electrician training program teach electricians to identify damage to electrical equipment. Such training enables electricians to assess whether the headwall units may have been damaged in transit or handling, and whether the level of damage is acceptable. Electrician Gene Nixon testified that if wire is not handled properly it can leave a raw edge that can abrade the insulation on the wire. The Electricians are trained to look at the units as they come from the manufacturer and assess whether there are risks in the way the conduit is cut. Nixon testi- fied that after the unit has been installed on the wall it is difficult to assess whether any wires inside the unit have been damaged, or whether there is loose conduit that could cause problems after installation. Electrician Wayne Frank testified: “If you have loose conduits in here, you have a bad current path for f[u]ll current and you may never trip a breaker but yet you could kill UNITED ASSN. LOCAL 447 (RUDOLPH & SLETTEN) 281 somebody very easily.” Frank testified that electricians are trained to understand the importance of problems “electrically down the road.” The Electricians presented testimony that the premanufactured unit should be in- spected by an individual trained to identify potential miswiring prior to the installation. Frank testified that “unless you have some ability to observe this assembly, you’d be taking a huge risk taking it out and putting it on the wall.” Nixon testified that although tests are run on the electrical system after the unit is installed, the tests do not always catch damage to the wires or other prob- lems. In 2002, the Employer was a general contractor on a project at the Kaiser Roseville hospital during which headwall units were installed. Nixon testified that there was a high rate of problems with the headwall units, and the problems were discovered only after the units were installed. The Electricians were required to spend con- siderable time troubleshooting and fixing the equipment. The headwall units on that project were installed by Car- penters-represented employees, but Nixon testified that he had no evidence that Carpenters-represented employ- ees caused the problems. The Plumbers argue that California law, the instruc- tions of the headwall unit manufacturer, and the archi- tect’s plans all required certified and/or trained installers, and that the assignment of the work to Carpenters- represented employees violates California law and is unsafe. The Plumbers contend that the headwall units are part of a medical gas system, and Airco Vice Presi- dent Larry Cook testified that anyone working on a medical gas system has to be properly trained and certi- fied.8 The headwall manufacturer’s guidelines provide that there are risks of pipe damage during headwall in- 8 California Plumbing Code Sec. 1310.6 defines a Medical Gas Sys- tem as a “system consisting of a central supply system (manifold, bulk, or compressors), including control equipment and piping extending to station outlets in the facility where medical gases may be required.” Sec. 1310.13 defines a station outlet as “an outlet point in a medical gas piping system at which the use makes connections and disconnections.” Plumbers contends that the headwall unit is a station outlet and is part of the medical gas system. In evaluating this factor, we do not rely on the Plumbers’ opinion that the headwall unit is part of the medical gas system and therefore that state licensing requirements require that the work in dispute be performed by employees certified in medical gas installation. The Board does not rely on licensing requirements where “the applicability of the regulation is unclear” and the Board would be required “to make an interpretation of the regulation.” Electrical Workers IBEW Local 103 (Lucent Technologies), 333 NLRB 828, 831 (2001), citing Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 (Park L. Davis Co.), 296 NLRB 14, 16 (1989). Here, as in Lucent Technologies and unlike in Park L. Davis, the record does not contain a “definitive interpretation” by the State concerning the applicability of the state licensing requirements to the work in dis- pute. 333 NLRB at 831; 296 NLRB at 17. stallation and the installer may have to manipulate piping during installation. The Plumbers receive training in medical gas installation and cannot become certified un- til they have 4 years of piping experience, and pass writ- ten and brazing tests. The Plumbers are trained to recognize and prevent po- tential hazards. Plumbers Business Manager Harry Rotz testified that it is important for a certified plumber to be involved in the decision about where the unit is to be mounted in order to limit the number of joints and pre- vent contamination, and ensure that there is adequate clearance for the pipes to be soldered. Problems in the location of the template would not be noticed because the template would be covered by sheetrock and would not be visible. Plumber Gary Peck testified that problems can arise during installation when the headwall unit is placed over the stubs of pipes previously installed by plumbers. Sometimes the pipe stubs are too long and must be trimmed. Moving the pipes must be done care- fully in order to avoid kinks. The pipes may be bent dur- ing mounting by untrained workers. Factory installed caps on pipes are sometimes dislodged and this can cause contamination in the system. Workers must be trained in what to do when the caps are dislodged or missing.9 Be- cause the Plumbers are required to certify the system as a whole, they want to have control over the unit and main- tain a chain of custody. The Plumbers contends that there are critical assess- ments that must be made when the headwall unit is re- moved from the box. The units require special handling and plumbers should inspect the units to determine whether the seals are missing or if one of the station out- lets has been smashed. The units must be inspected, in- ventoried, and distributed by, or under the supervision of, competent and qualified installers. Defects may not be discovered if an untrained worker unpacks, distributes, and installs the units. Carpenters-represented employees receive no training related to the installation of electrical or plumbing outlets or fixtures. The work in dispute does not entail the actual connec- tion of electrical or plumbing components. Although Carpenters-represented employees are qualified to per- form the disputed work and the Employer is satisfied with their performance, employees represented by the Plumbers and the Electricians are also qualified to per- form the disputed work. In light of their specialized training, however, employees represented by the Plumb- ers and the Electricians may be better able to detect prob- 9 Plumber Terry Francis testified that the plumber would have to “pull a vacuum on it and purge, blow-out, examine the inside with a mirror.” DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 282 lems and prevent damage. We find that this factor slightly favors awarding the disputed work to a compos- ite crew represented by the Plumbers and the Electri- cians. 6. Economy and efficiency of operations The Employer presented evidence that assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by the Car- penters is more efficient because they are already work- ing on the site performing other tasks in addition to their headwall unit work. The Employer claims that using its own employees to perform the disputed work gives the Employer more control over the project, ensuring that its schedules are met. Employees represented by both the Plumbers and the Electricians are also already on the site performing other work. The Electricians contends that it is inefficient for electricians and plumbers to troubleshoot and fix prob- lems that could have been avoided had a trained individ- ual inspected, handled, and installed the equipment. Wayne Frank, an electrician and instructor with the Sac- ramento Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (JATC), testified that “it’s a lot cheaper to deal with it when it’s laying on the ground than after it’s in the wall.” The Plumbers also claim that “it would not be efficient to require a carpenter when a plumber and an electrician are already required.” Both groups of employees are already on the site per- forming other work. However, because the composite crew is better able to recognize defects prior to the instal- lation of the headwall and can fix any problems at that point rather than after installation, it may be marginally more efficient and economical for the composite crew to perform the disputed work. Accordingly, we find that this factor slightly supports awarding the disputed work to the composite crew represented by the Plumbers and the Electricians.10 7. Interunion agreements The Electricians and the Plumbers have had an agree- ment since 1985 that provides for the use of a composite crew of employees represented by those unions for the installation of headwall units. However, neither the Em- 10 The Carpenters states in its brief that Carpenters-represented em- ployees are paid a lower hourly rate than employees represented by Electricians or Plumbers. The Carpenters notes, however, that the Employer testified that the hourly rate was not a factor in assigning the disputed work. Even if the Employer had relied on the wage differen- tials as a factor in its assignment decision, the Board does not consider wage differentials as a basis for awarding disputed work. Automotive Trades District Lodge 190 (Sea-Land Service), 322 NLRB 830, 835 (1997), citing Longshoremen ILA Local 1242 (Rail Distribution Cen- ter), 310 NLRB 1, 5 fn. 4 (1993). ployer nor the Carpenters is a party to that agreement, and they are not bound by it. The Plumbers and the Electricians argue that this fac- tor favors awarding the disputed work to a Plumb- ers/Electricians composite crew rather than to Carpen- ters-represented employees. However, because the Car- penters was not a party to this agreement, this factor does not favor awarding the work to either group of employ- ees. Conclusion After considering all of the relevant factors, we con- clude that employees represented by the Carpenters are entitled to perform the work in dispute. Although the factors of relative skills and training and economy and efficiency of operations slightly favor awarding the dis- puted work to a composite crew of employees repre- sented by the Plumbers and the Electricians, we find that those factors are outweighed by the factors of Em- ployer’s preference, past practice, current assignment, and collective-bargaining agreement that favor awarding the disputed work to employees represented by the Car- penters.11 In making this determination, we are awarding the work to employees represented by the Carpenters, not to that Union or its members. This determination is lim- ited to the controversy that gave rise to this proceeding. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow- ing Determination of Dispute. 1. Employees of Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., represented by Carpenters Union, Local No. 46, are entitled to per- form all work involved in receiving, inventory, distribu- tion, layout, and installation of H-3, H-5, H-7, H-10, and H-11 headwall/headboard units in patient rooms at the Kaiser Women’s and Children’s Center, including instal- lation of all components, backing plates, templates, cov- ers, and equipment such as shelves, medical equipment brackets, etc. 2. United Association, Local 447, AFL–CIO is not en- titled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force Rudolph & Sletten, Inc. to assign the dis- puted work to employees represented by it. 11 Member Walsh agrees that the disputed work should be awarded to employees represented by the Carpenters, but, as set forth above, he does not rely on the collective-bargaining agreement factor. In award- ing the disputed work to employees represented by the Carpenters, he finds that the factors of Employer’s preference, past practice, and cur- rent assignment, which clearly favor awarding the work to Carpenters- represented employees, outweigh the factors of relative skills and train- ing and economy and efficiency of operations, which only slightly favor awarding the work to a composite crew of employees represented by the Plumbers and the Electricians. UNITED ASSN. LOCAL 447 (RUDOLPH & SLETTEN) 283 3. Within 14 days from this date, United Association, Local 447, AFL–CIO shall notify the Regional Director for Region 20 in writing whether it will refrain from forcing the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the disputed work in a manner in- consistent with this determination.