North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters (SAMAP USA, Corp.)

373 NLRB No. 27 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters and SAMAP USA, Corp. and International Un- ion of Painters and Allied Trades, District Coun- cil 9 and International Union of Painters and Al- lied Trades, District Council 35. Case 01–CD– 312891 March 6, 2024 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND WILCOX This is a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). SAMAP USA, Corp. (the Employer) filed a charge on February 24, 2023, alleging that North Atlantic States Re- gional Council of Carpenters (NASRCC) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening to engage in pro- scribed activity with an object of forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employees it represents rather than to employees represented by International Union of Paint- ers and Allied Trades (IUPAT), District Council 9 (DC 9) and/or District Council 35 (DC 35). A hearing was held on June 8, 16, and 20, 2023, before Hearing Officer Col- leen Fleming. Thereafter, the parties filed posthearing briefs. 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, finding them free from prejudicial error. On the entire record, the Board makes the following findings. I. JURISDICTION The parties stipulated that the Employer is a New York corporation with a principal office in Morganville, New Jersey, and annually performs services valued in excess of $50,000 in states other than the State of New Jersey. The parties further stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The parties also stipulated, and we find, that NASRCC, DC 9, and DC 35 are labor organizations within the mean- ing of the Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of Dispute The Employer is based in New Jersey and performs millwork installation jobs as a subcontractor for general contractors at construction sites throughout the country, including in Boston, Massachusetts. The Employer has performed more than 1000 jobs involving the installation of millwork and associated hardware, and the finished products installed by the Employer have included wood, metals, glass, and other mixed materials. Since 2016, the Employer has been a party to an agree- ment with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join- ers of America (Carpenters), requiring the Employer to comply with applicable agreements of Carpenters affili- ates when performing work throughout the country. The Employer also is a signatory to various Carpenters-affili- ate agreements, including an NASRCC agreement appli- cable to work in Nassau and Suffolk counties in New York. Under the “Work in Other Areas” provision of that agreement, the Employer is “bound to the terms and con- ditions” of any applicable NASRCC agreement “as if it were a signatory” when performing work anywhere within the geographic jurisdiction of NASRCC, New York and the States of New England. The Employer is thereby bound by the “New England Regional Council of Carpen- ters” agreement (the NERCC CBA), a NASRCC agree- ment applicable to work in eastern Massachusetts, includ- ing Boston, as well as in Maine, New Hampshire, and Ver- mont. Over the past 8 years, the Employer has employed crews represented by Carpenters affiliates on more than 1000 jobs. The Employer directly employs a “core group” of about 25 to 30 NASRCC-represented carpenters on a regular basis. These “regular carpenters” are based in the New York and New Jersey area and travel with the Em- ployer to jobs throughout the country. For jobs outside the New York and New Jersey area, the Employer typically uses a “50/50 match crew” comprised of regular carpen- ters from the core group and an equal number of “local carpenters” obtained from the local Carpenters hiring hall. Between 2021 and 2022, the Employer used a 50/50 match crew for multiple jobs in Boston, Massachusetts, that were covered by the NERCC CBA. The Employer has also been a signatory to agreements of two IUPAT affiliates and has employed glaziers repre- sented by an IUPAT affiliate on a total of five jobs. In 2017, the Employer became a signatory to the “Northern California Glaziers Master Agreement” with IUPAT Dis- trict Council 16 (DC 16). The Employer performed only one job covered by that agreement and is no longer a sig- natory to any DC 16 agreement. The one job involved a glass-only installation of a “glazing wall,” specifically “a façade of the building made out of glass.” Except for this job, the Employer has never used a glaziers-only crew. Also in 2017, the Employer joined a multiemployer bar- gaining association, the Window and Plate Glass Dealers Association, and became a signatory to the “Glaziers Agreement” between DC 9 and the association, effective by its terms through April 30, 2023. The “Craft Jurisdic- tion” of that agreement covers the “setting of and/or re- moval of” various types of “glass.” Its “Territorial Juris- diction” is defined as the counties in and around New York City that comprise the geographic jurisdiction of DC 9, and it includes no terms applicable to work outside that Territorial Jurisdiction. There is a separate “Mainframe Agreement” between DC 9 and three multiemployer DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 bargaining associations—the Association of Master Paint- ers and Decorators of New York, the Association of Wall, Ceiling, & Carpentry Industries of New York, and the Window and Plate Glass Dealers Association—that is ef- fective through April 30, 2024. That agreement, which is also known as the DC 9 Painters Agreement, covers “work involved in or related to the Painting and Protective Coat- ings Industry.” Unlike the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement, the DC 9 Mainframe Agreement’s “territorial jurisdiction” is defined to “include all areas” that comprise the geographic jurisdiction of DC 9 plus “when engaged in work outside the geographic jurisdiction of [DC 9], [an employer-party must] comply with [agreements of IUPAT affiliates] in ef- fect in said other geographic jurisdiction and executed by the employers of the industry.” In 2020, the Employer performed four jobs in New York City using a “composite crew” of glaziers rep- resented by DC 9 and carpenters represented by NASRCC. The use of these composite crews was by agreement of DC 9 and NASRCC, which each claimed all of the work. The glaziers were employed by the Employer in accordance with the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement. There is no evidence that the Employer has ever performed work even arguably covered by the DC 9 Mainframe Agree- ment. By letter to DC 9 on February 10, 2023, the Em- ployer provided timely notice withdrawing from the mul- tiemployer bargaining association and terminating its sta- tus as a signatory to the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement effec- tive April 30, 2023. The Employer has not used employ- ees represented by any IUPAT affiliate for any job since 2020 and has not been a signatory to any glaziers’ agree- ment of any IUPAT affiliate since at least April 30, 2023.1 The Employer has never been a signatory to an agree- ment of DC 35, the IUPAT affiliate with geographic juris- diction over Boston, Massachusetts. The Employer has never employed any employee represented by DC 35. Nor has the Employer ever employed any employee repre- sented by another IUPAT affiliate on a jobsite within the geographic jurisdiction of DC 35. The parties dispute 1 The Employer sent DC 9 a second letter on February 28, 2023, stat- ing that it was “terminating” its obligations under the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement “effective immediately” on the basis that it had “a permanent and stable bargaining unit of less than 2 glazing employees in DC 9’s jurisdiction.” In addition, the Employer stated that it was terminating “any obligations” it had under the DC 9 Mainframe Agreement “effec- tive immediately,” noting that it believed it had no “remaining or inde- pendent obligations” under that agreement. DC 9 contends that the Employer remained bound by the DC 9 Gla- ziers Agreement after February 28, 2023. However, DC 9 does not dis- pute that the Employer has not been a signatory to the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement since April 30, 2023. We do not pass on whether the Em- ployer remained bound by the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement from February 28, 2023, through April 30, 2023. We also do not pass on whether the Employer was bound, at any time, by the DC 9 Mainframe Agreement. 2 As discussed above, the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement includes no terms applicable to work outside its “Territorial Jurisdiction,” which, unlike the DC 9 Mainframe Agreement, is defined as limited to the New York coun- ties that comprise the geographic jurisdiction of DC 9. However, the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement also incorporates “all the terms and conditions” of whether the Employer, as a signatory to the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement, was bound by a DC 35 agreement such that it was required to employ glaziers represented by an IUPAT affiliate when performing work at jobsites within the geo- graphic jurisdiction of DC 35.2 In December 2022, the Employer bid to perform work as a subcontractor at the Raffles Boston Back Bay Hotel & Residences in Boston, Massachusetts. The general con- tractor, Suffolk Construction Company (Suffolk), awarded a package of work to the Employer (the Raffles Hotel Job). Suffolk is a signatory to the NERCC CBA, and the Suffolk-Employer agreement required that the Employer assign “all work that falls within the jurisdiction of the NERCC CBA” to Carpenters. The Suffolk-Em- ployer agreement does not reference any agreement of any IUPAT affiliate. In late January 2023, the Employer began the Raffles Hotel Job using a 50/50 match crew of about five regular NASRCC-represented carpenters and about five local NASRCC-represented carpenters. Two of the local car- penters had worked for the Employer on a prior job in the Boston area. Approximately 40 percent of the Raffles Ho- tel Job involves work related to installing amenity area doors, library walls, vestibule doors, entrance doors, hol- low doors, and bookshelf walls. There is no dispute that this work is covered by the NERCC CBA and was properly assigned to NASRCC-represented carpenters. The remaining approximately 60 percent of the Raffles Hotel Job involves work related to installing shower-door enclosures. NASRCC, DC 9, and DC 35 each claim this work. Of the disputed work, approximately 70 percent in- volves the installation of metal frames and approximately 30 percent involves setting glass partitions in the metal frames and applying silicone. The glass partitions arrive at the worksite ready to be placed in the metal frames. No work is required on the glass itself. At the time of the hearing, the Raffles Hotel Job, including the disputed work, was ongoing and being performed by the 50/50- match crew of carpenters represented by NASRCC. the DC 9 Mainframe Agreement that do not have “any conflict” with the “provisions” of the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement. And as noted above, the DC 9 Mainframe Agreement, which is known as the DC 9 Painters Agreement and covers “work involved in or related to the Painting and Protective Coatings Industry,” includes a provision requiring that an em- ployer-party, “when engaged in work outside the geographic jurisdiction of [DC 9], comply with [agreements of IUPAT affiliates] in effect in said other geographic jurisdiction and executed by the employers of the in- dustry.” DC 35 and DC 9 contend that the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement incorporates this provision such that the Employer, as a signatory to the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement, was bound by a DC 35 agreement when per- forming work within DC 35’s geographic jurisdiction and otherwise cov- ered by the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement. The Employer and NASRCC contend that the provision conflicts with, and therefore is not incorpo- rated by, the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement. No party offered a DC 35 agreement into the record, but the parties’ briefs all assume that there is a DC 35 agreement that materially covers the same “Craft Jurisdiction,” meaning the same type of work, as DC 9’s Glaziers Agreement. NORTH ATLANTIC STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS (SAMAP USA, CORP.) 3 On February 22, 2023, the Employer learned that DC 35 and DC 9 had filed grievances claiming the work related to the installation of the shower-door enclosures at the Raffles Hotel Job.3 On February 23, 2023, a NASRCC representative called the Employer and threatened that NASRCC-represented carpenters would walk off the job if the Employer assigned work at the Raffles Hotel Job to employees represented by DC 9 or DC 35. On February 24, 2023, the Employer filed a charge alleging that NASRCC thereby had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. B. Work in Dispute The parties stipulated, and we find, that the work in dis- pute is the installation of shower-door enclosures at the Raffles Boston Back Bay Hotel & Residences project in Boston, Massachusetts. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer and NASRCC contend that the Board is authorized to determine the merits of this jurisdictional dispute. The Employer and NASRCC contend that the work in dispute should be assigned to the employees NASRCC represents. DC 9 and DC 35 each contend that the work in dispute should be assigned to the employees it represents. D. Applicability of the Statute The Board may proceed with a determination of a dis- pute under Section 10(k) of the Act only if there is reason- able cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been vi- olated. Operating Engineers Local 150 (R&D Thiel), 345 NLRB 1137, 1139 (2005). This standard requires finding that there is reasonable cause to believe that there are com- peting claims to the disputed work and that a party has used proscribed means to enforce its claim to that work. Additionally, there must be a finding that the parties have not agreed on a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. Id. On this record, we find that these require- ments have been met. 1. Competing claims for work The parties stipulated, and we find, that NASRCC, DC 9, and DC 35 each claim the work in dispute. 2. Use of proscribed means We find reasonable cause to believe that NASRCC used means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) to enforce its claim to the work in dispute. As set forth above, NASRCC threatened to pull the employees it represents from the 3 DC 9 filed multiple grievances with the Joint Trade Committee of the Painting and Decorating Industry (JTC) alleging that the Employer had violated the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement by assigning the disputed work to the carpenters represented by the NASRCC. The JTC heard the grievances on February 21, 2023. The Employer did not receive notice of the JTC hearing and was unaware that the grievances had been filed until after the JTC hearing. After the hearing in this case, the JTC issued a decision finding that the Employer had violated the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement. Raffles Hotel Job if the disputed work was assigned to DC 9 or DC 35. Such threats are proscribed means to enforce a claim to disputed work. Washington & Northern Idaho District Council of Laborers (Skanska USA Building, Inc.), 366 NLRB No. 161, slip op. at 3 (2018). In the ab- sence of affirmative evidence that the threat was a sham or the product of collusion, such a threat establishes rea- sonable cause to believe that the statute has been violated. Lancaster Typographical Union No. 70 (C.J.S. Lancas- ter), 325 NLRB 449, 450–451 (1998). Here, no such evi- dence was presented. DC 9 argues that John Murphy, a recently retired chief of staff for NASRCC, testified that NASRCC's threat is “ridiculous” and “not conceivable” because NASRCC could be sued if it violated a no-strike clause. However, “the Board has rejected the argument that a job action threat [is] a sham because it involve[s] violating a no-strike clause.” Laborers Local 210 (Su- rianello General Concrete Contractor), 351 NLRB 210, 211 (2007). 3. No voluntary method for adjustment of dispute The parties stipulated, and we find, that there is no agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment of the dis- puted work that would bind all parties. Based on the foregoing, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and that there is no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. We accordingly find that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirmative award of disputed work after considering various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573, 577 (1961). The Board’s determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judg- ment based on common sense and experience, reached by balancing the factors involved in a particular case. Ma- chinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962). The following factors are relevant in making the deter- mination of this dispute. 1. Board certifications and collective- bargaining agreements The parties stipulated that the Employer is not failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determin- ing the bargaining representative for the employees per- forming the work in dispute. DC 35 filed a grievance with the New England Painting, Finishing, and Glazing Industries Joint Trade Board (JTB) alleging that the Em- ployer had violated a DC 35 agreement by failing to hold a “pre-job con- ference” and by “installing shower doors without glaziers.” The griev- ance was heard by the JTB on February 23, 2023, and the Employer re- ceived notice of that hearing the prior evening. On May 30, 2023, the JTB issued a decision finding that the Employer had violated the DC 35 agreement. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 The Employer has an established and ongoing relation- ship with NASRCC. As a signatory to an agreement with NASRCC, the Employer is bound by the NERCC CBA when performing jobs in Boston, Massachusetts. There is no dispute that the NERCC CBA gives NASRCC- represented carpenters jurisdiction over approximately 40 percent of the Raffles Hotel Job. We find that the NERCC CBA also arguably covers and gives NASRCC-represented carpenters jurisdiction over the disputed work. Although not including any specific reference to the installation of shower-door enclosures, the NERCC CBA broadly covers “milling, fashioning, join- ing, assembling, erecting, fastening or dismantling of all material of wood, plastic, metal fiber, cork and composi- tion, and all other substitute materials” and specifically covers, among other things, the “setting and hanging of all sash.” Further, NASRCC presented testimonial evidence that the phrase “other substitute materials” includes glass and that the phrase “setting and hanging of all sash” in- cludes installing glass into a frame, such as a window or door, and installing shower enclosures. The Employer has no ongoing relationship with any IUPAT affiliate and has never had a relationship with DC 35, the IUPAT affiliate with geographic jurisdiction over the Raffles Hotel Job. The Employer has had agreements only with DC 9 and DC 16 and has employed IUPAT- represented employees only within their geographic juris- dictions. Nonetheless, DC 9 and DC 35 claim that the Em- ployer had a contractual obligation to assign the work in dispute to glaziers that they represent. We find that DC 9 and DC 35 failed to establish that the Employer was bound by any agreement even arguably giving any employees represented by DC 9 or DC 35 ju- risdiction over the disputed work. First, the DC 9 Main- frame Agreement does not cover the disputed work. Alt- hough, unlike the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement, it provides for territorial jurisdiction to extend outside the area in and around New York City that comprises the geographic ju- risdiction of DC 9, it covers “work involved in or related to the Painting and Protective Coatings Industry” rather than the type of work at issue. Second, for territorial-ju- risdiction reasons, the provisions of the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement do not cover the disputed work either. Alt- hough, unlike the DC 9 Mainframe Agreement, its “Craft Jurisdiction” includes the “glazing of . . . shower and tub enclosures framed or frameless,” the type of work at issue, its “Territorial Jurisdiction” is defined as limited to the 4 Although, as discussed above, the record reflects that DC 35 and DC 9 received arbitration awards interpreting their agreements in a man- ner consistent with their claims to the work, the Board gives little or no weight to arbitration awards when one of the parties to the jurisdictional dispute was not bound thereby. Machinists District 160 Local 289 (SSA Marine), 347 NLRB 549, 551 fn. 4 (2006). The Employer and NASRCC argue that because the Employer termi- nated its status as a signatory to the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement, DC 9 and DC 35 could not rely on that agreement even if it arguably covered the work in dispute. They would be correct if the Employer had terminated New York counties that comprise the geographic jurisdic- tion of DC 9. There are no terms in the DC 9 Glaziers agreement relating to work outside that area, and, because of the limited territorial jurisdiction, it does not incorpo- rate terms that would broaden its geographic reach. Alt- hough otherwise incorporating “all terms and conditions” of the DC 9 Mainframe Agreement, the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement specifies that its “provisions . . . shall prevail” if there is “any conflict” between the “terms and provi- sions” of the two agreements. Accordingly, because its provisions limit its geographic reach to the area over which DC 9 has jurisdiction, the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement does not incorporate the conflicting terms of the DC 9 Mainframe Agreement extending that agreement’s reach to areas where DC 9 does not have jurisdiction. In sum, there is no evidence that the Employer has ever been bound by any IUPAT-affiliate agreement covering any relevant work within the geographic jurisdiction of DC 35.4 We find that the factor of the collective-bargaining agreements favors awarding the work in dispute to the em- ployees represented by NASRCC. See Glaziers District Council 16 (Service West), 356 NLRB 760, 763 (2011) (finding that the factor of collective-bargaining agree- ments favored awarding disputed work to the Carpenters- represented employees, where the employer was a signa- tory to an applicable Carpenters agreement and not to an applicable IUPAT glaziers agreement). 2. Employer preference and current assignment The Employer generally has employed a 50/50 match crew comprised of the Employer’s NASRCC-represented regular carpenters from the core group and an equal num- ber of local carpenters obtained from the applicable Car- penters hiring hall. Based on its longstanding collective- bargaining relationship with NASRCC, the Employer has assigned the work in dispute at the Raffles project to the 50/50 match crew of regular and local carpenters repre- sented by NASRCC. In addition, the Employer prefers that NASRCC-represented carpenters continue to perform the work because its “practice” is to assign all work to them unless the job required hiring another trade, it has been satisfied by the quality of the work they have per- formed on other projects, and it can assign them other work on the Raffles Hotel Job in addition to the disputed work. The Employer also prefers using NASRCC- represented carpenters because their work flexibility the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement prior to contracting to perform the Raffles Hotel Job, but there is no dispute that the Employer remained bound by that agreement at that time. Cf. Sprinkler Fitters Local 703 (Airco Car- bon), 261 NLRB 1122, 1124–1125 (1982) (finding that the terminated agreement was “not entitled to be given any weight” where the employer terminated it before contracting to perform the disputed work, and there was no evidence that the employer intended to sign a new agreement or had employed any employee covered by the terminated agreement while it was in effect). In any event, as explained above, the DC 9 Glaziers Agreement did not cover the disputed work. NORTH ATLANTIC STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS (SAMAP USA, CORP.) 5 makes it more efficient to use them as they have skills and training to perform all work on the Raffles Hotel Job. Thus, the factors of current assignment and employer pref- erence favor awarding disputed work to the Carpenters- represented employees.5 3. Economy and efficiency of operations The record reflects that it would be more efficient and economical to use carpenters represented by NASRCC for the disputed work. As discussed above, there is no dispute that the Employer is required to assign about 40 percent of the Raffles Hotel Job to NASRCC-represented carpenters. As discussed below, we find that the NASRCC- represented carpenters have the skills and training neces- sary to perform the disputed work as well. Thus, NASRCC-represented carpenters can shift between the disputed work and the rest of the Raffles Hotel Job de- pending on the Employer’s needs. Accordingly, we find that the factor of the economy and effi- ciency of operations favors an award of the disputed work to employees represented by NASRCC. See New England Fin- ish Systems, 366 NLRB No. 24, slip op. at 8 (finding it was more efficient to use carpenters, rather than glaziers, to install glass shower doors because the carpenters could “shift be- tween normal carpentry work on the jobsite and the disputed work”). 4. Area and industry practice The record reflects that glaziers represented by IUPAT affiliates regularly have installed glass shower-door enclo- sures, including in Boston, Massachusetts. The record also reflects that NASRCC-represented carpenters regu- larly have performed such work, including in Boston, par- ticularly in recent years where the employer has not been a signatory to an agreement with DC 35.6 We find that the evidence regarding the area and indus- try practice is inconclusive and does not favor awarding the disputed work to employees represented by any of the competing unions. 5. Relative skills and training The record reflects that the competing unions all pro- vide formal training for their members relevant to the dis- puted work. Further, both carpenters represented by NASRCC and glaziers represented by DC 9 and DC 35 have installed shower-door enclosures like those in dis- pute here. As discussed above, the disputed work does not 5 Along with the factors of current assignment and employer prefer- ence, the Board also considers an employer’s past practice of assign- ments of the type of work in dispute. Here, the Employer and DC 35 appear to dispute whether the Employer had a past practice of assigning the installation of shower-door enclosure work to NASRCC-represented carpenters. The Employer contends that it had such a past practice and points to the testimony of its president, Jay Dubin, that the Employer had done over 1000 jobs under the NASRCC Agreement. For its part, DC 35 points to three jobs the Employer performed in New York in 2020 using a “composite crew” of DC 9-represented glaziers and NASRCC- represented carpenters and asserts that, in his testimony, Dubin admitted that there was no shower-door enclosure work on these jobs. In these involve any glass work such as cutting, polishing, or fin- ishing. The majority of the disputed work involves the installation of metal frames, and the remainder involves placing prefinished glass partitions into the metal frames and applying silicone. We find that the evidence regarding the relative skill and training is inconclusive and does not favor awarding the disputed work to employees represented by any of the competing unions. Conclusions After considering all relevant factors, we conclude that the employees represented by NASRCC are entitled to perform the disputed work. We reach this conclusion re- lying on the factors of the collective-bargaining agree- ments, the employer’s preference and current assignment, and the economy and efficiency of operations. In making this determination, we award the work to the employees represented by NASRCC, not to that labor organization or to its members. The determination is limited to the con- troversy that gave rise to this proceeding. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow- ing Determination of Dispute. Employees of SAMAP USA, Corp., who are repre- sented by the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters are entitled to perform the work in dispute in- volving the installation of shower-door enclosures at the Raffles Boston Back Bay Hotel & Residences project in Boston, Massachusetts. Dated, Washington, D.C. March 6, 2024 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Chairman ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan Member _____________________________________ Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD circumstances, we find that the Employer’s past practice is a neutral fac- tor and does not favor awarding the disputed work to either group of represented employees. 6 Because the record indicates that both groups of employees regu- larly have installed shower-door enclosures in the area in recent years, we put little or no weight on our finding in New England Finish Systems, above, that the Boston area practice, as of late 2016, favored awarding the installation of glass shower doors at a Boston jobsite to DC 35-rep- resented employees. See Carpenters (Servco Cos.), 315 NLRB 696, 698 (1994) (finding that the factor of area and industry practice favors neither group given a recent history of mixed practice).