Iron Workers Local 118, International Associates Of Bridge, Structural And Ornamental Iron Workers, Afl-Cio

674 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Iron Workers Local 118, International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO and Amoroso/Roebbelen, a Joint Venture and Carpenters 46 Northern Cali- fornia Counties Conference Board and Sacra- mento Area District Council of Carpenters. Case 32-CD-97 April 26, 1988 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS BABSON AND CRACRAFT The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed July 25, 1986, by the Employer, alleging that the Respondent Iron Workers Local 118, Interna- tional Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna- mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Iron Workers) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to employees represented by Carpenters 46 North- ern California Counties Conference Board and Sac- ramento Area District Council of Carpenters (Car- penters). The hearing was held August 21, 1986, before Hearing Officer Colleen Hart.1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings, finding them free from prejudicial error. On the entire record, the Board makes the following fmd- ings. I. JURISDICTION The Employer is a joint venture partnership con- sisting of two California corporations, Roebbelen Engineering, Inc. and Amoroso Construction Co., Inc. The Employer is engaged in the construction of a prison at Jamestown California, where in the 12 months preceding the hearing it purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of California. We fmd that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that the Iron Workers and Carpenters are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1 Although all parties had notice and opportunity to appear at the hearing, only the Employer appeared and presented evidence. No party submitted a brief II. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of Dispute The Employer is a general contractor engaged in the construction of prisons for the State of Califor- nia, including the one involved here at Jamestown. The Employer assigned the work of installing slid- ing cell doors and hinged doors at the Jamestown project to its employees represented by the Car- penters. This was in accord with its award of simi- lar work to its carpenter employees at the Susan- ville prison project, where the work had already started. The Employer has a collective-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters covering its carpen- ter employees. The Employer does not employ any ironworkers. On or about July 16, 1986, 2 the Iron Workers' business agent demanded that the Employer assign the installation of sliding cell and other doors at the Jamestown worksite to employees represented by the Iron Workers. He also threatened to picket the project if they did not receive the work. The demand was refused and the following day pickets appeared at the jobsite. The picket signs indicated that the dispute was between a subcontractor of the Employer, Arnold Electric, and the Iron Workers. The picketing, however, was not restrict- ed to the times when Arnold Welding was on the site. Further, the picketing ceased for a period when the Employer and the Iron Workers attempt- ed to resolve the dispute. When the settlement ne- gotiations failed, the picketing resumed during the first week in August. The Iron Workers continued to picket the project until approximately August 19. B. Work in Dispute The disputed work involves the installation of all sliding cell doors and hinged doors at the James- town, California prison project. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends that the work in dispute should be assigned to employees represented by the Carpenters on the basis of the collective-bargaining agreement, past practice, employer preference, skills, and economy and efficiency of operation. As previously indicated, the Carpenters and the Iron Workers did not participate in the hearing and have not expressed their contentions to the Board in this matter. 2 All dates hereafter refer to 1986 288 NLRB No. 78 IRON WORKERS LOCAL 118 (AMOROSO/ROEBBELEN) 675 D. Applicability of the Statute The record indicates that on July 16 the business representative for the Iron Workers demanded that the Employer assign the disputed work to employ- ees represented by the Iron Workers and threat- ened to picket if the work was not so assigned. The demand was refused and the following day the Iron Workers picketed the jobsite. Although the picket signs indicated that the dispute was with one of the Employer's subcontractors, we find reasona- ble cause to believe from the record as a whole that an object of the Iron Workers' picketing was to force or require the Employer to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by the Iron Workers. There is no voluntary method for the adjustment of jurisdictional disputes. We find reasonable cause to believe that a viola- tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there exists no agreed method for voluntary adjust- ment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the dis- pute is properly before the Board for determina- tion. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an af- firmative award of disputed work after considering various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on common sense and experience, reached by bal- ancing the factors involved in a particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743 (I A. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). The following factors are relevant in making the determination of this dispute. 1. Collective-bargaining agreements As previously indicated, the Employer has a col- lective-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters. It does not have an agreement with the Iron Work- ers. The Carpenters' contract generally covers "all carpentry work on all construction," but does not more specifically refer to the work in dispute or otherwise mention the installation of doors. Ac- cordingly, we find that this factor does not favor an award of the work in dispute to employees rep- resented by either the Carpenters or the Iron Workers.3 8 See, e g., Stage Employees LIME Local One (CBS, Inc), 263 NLRB 977, 978 (1982). 2. Company preference and past practice The Employer, in accordance with its prefer- ence, assigned the work in dispute to employees represented by the Carpenters. The Employer had previously assigned the installation of the work in dispute at the Susanville prison jobsite to employ- ees represented by the Carpenters. In addition, with respect to the hinged doors portion of the dis- puted work, Roebbelen had utilized employees rep- resented by the Carpenters to install approximately 10,000 similar doors in its various projects. We find that the Employer's preference and past practice favor awarding the disputed work to employees represented by the Carpenters. 3. Relative skills The installation of sliding cell doors requires spe- cial skill in laying out and lining up the doors. Ex- treme precision is required so as to enable all 20 se- curity doors in a cell block unit to close simulta- neously. Lasers and other tools needed to perform this work are used by carpenters. The installation of hinged doors involves the tools, equipment, and skills that are required to hang any other type of door, work that is normally performed by carpen- ters. There is no evidence that ironworkers possess the necessary skills, with the exception of welding, to perform the work in dispute. Therefore, we find that this factor favors an award of the disputed work to employees represented by the Carpenters. 4. Economy and efficiency of operations The Employer does not employ ironworkers. It would face additional costs by hiring them to per- form the work in dispute while retaining its carpen- ters to perform other traditional work assignments. Accordingly, we find that this factor favors an award of the work to employees represented by the Carpenters. Conclusions After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude that employees represented by the Car- penters are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying on the Employ- er's past practice, the Employer's preference, rela- tive skills, and the economy and efficiency of oper- ations. In making this determination, we are award- ing the work to employees represented by the Car- penters, not to that Union or its members. The de- termination is limited to the controversy that gave rise to this proceeding. 676 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE The National Labor Relations Board makes the following Determination of Dispute. 1. The "employees of Amoroso/Roebbelen, a Joint Venture, represented by Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Conference Board and Sacramento Area District Council of Carpen- ters are entitled to perform the installation of slid- ing cell doors and hinged doors at the Jamestown, California prison project. 2. Iron Workers Local 118, International Asso- ciation of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO is not entitled by means pro- scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force Amoroso/Roebbelen, a Joint Venture, to assign the disputed work to employees represented by it. 3. Within 10 days from this date, Iron Workers Local 118, International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL- CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 32 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 inconsistent with this determination.