United Association of Journeymen, Local 262

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 262, AFL- CIO and Dyad Construction, Inc. and Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 942, AFL-CIO. Case 19-CD-361 September 9, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by Dyad Construction, Inc., herein called the Employer, alleging that United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 262, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 262, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activi- ty with an object of forcing or requiring the Em- ployer to assign certain work to its members rather than to employees represented by Laborers' Inter- national Union of North America, Local 942, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 942. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Barbara A. Laners on June 17, 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. No briefs were filed by any of the parties. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em- ployer, a State of Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Woodinville, Wash- ington, is engaged in the business of general con- tracting. During the past calendar year, a repre- sentative period, the Employer realized a gross revenue in excess of $500,000 and performed serv- ices outside the State of Washington valued in excess of $50,000. We find that the Employer is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local 262 and Local 942 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts of the Dispute The Employer contracted to install sewer line pipes for the city of Ketchikan, Alaska. The parties stipulated that in late February or early March 19801 Local 262 demanded that the Employer assign this work to employees whom it represents rather than to employees represented by Local 942. The Employer assigned the work to Local 942 on March 24, but on April 10 Local 262 reiterated its request for the assignment and indicated that it would picket the jobsite if such an assignment were not made. On April 16, Local 262 began picketing the jobsite, and the Employer filed the instant charge alleging that Local 262 had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The picketing ceased on April 18 pending resolution of this dispute. B. The Work in Dispute The parties stipulated that the dispute concerns the assignment of work tasks associated with the laying of sewer line pipes for the city of Ketchikan, Alaska. C. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contended at the hearing that its work assignment should be upheld, based upon considerations of skill, safety, area and industrial practice, efficiency, economics, and its own prefer- ence and past practice. Local 942 did not make an appearance at the hearing and did not file a brief. At the hearing Local 262 contended that all of the relevant factors except employer preference in- dicate that the work should be awarded to employ- ees whom it represents. However, on July 3, Local 262 notified the Board and all of the parties that it disclaimed any interest in representing the employ- ees who are engaged in the disputed work. Local 262 also indicated that it will not picket the Em- ployer concerning the work and requested that the proceedings be dismissed. None of the other parties has filed any response to Local 262's disclaimer. D. Applicability of the Statute Section 10(k) of the Act, which directs the Board to hear and determine disputes out of which 8(b)(4)(D) charges have arisen, limits the Board's authority in this respect to situations in which an I Unless otherwise specified, all dates herein refer to 1980. 252 NLRB No. 10 48 UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN, LOCAL 262 employer's assignment of work is in dispute. The Board has held, with Supreme Court approval, that a jurisdictional dispute no longer exists where one of the competing unions or parties effectively re- nounces its claim to the work.2 In light of the fact 2 N.LR.B. v. Plasterers Local Union No. 79 Operatrive Plasterersand Cement Masons' Internationa! Association. AFL-CIO (Texas State Tile Terrazzo Co., et al.) 404 U.S. 116, 134 (1971); Local Union No. 215. Con- struction and General Laborers' Union, AFL-CIO (J. L Turner Co., Inc.), 235 NLRB 754, 755-756 (1978); Newspaper Guild of New York Local 3. AFL-CIO. CLC (The New York Times Company). 218 NLRB 234 (1975); Local 56 Amalgamated Food and Allied Workers Union. affiliated with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, that Local 262 has unequivocally disclaimed inter- est in the disputed work, we find that there no longer exists a jurisdictional dispute within the meaning of the Act. We shall therefore quash the notice of hearing issued herein. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing issued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed. AFL-CIO (The Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Company. Inc.), 207 NLRB 1065 (1973). 49