Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 555 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS' UNION
•ricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' International
Union of America , Local No. 1, AFL-CIO and
Rocky Mountain Prestress , Inc. and Rocky Moun-
tain Prestress, Inc., John Madden Company and
Carpenters District Council of Denver & Vicinity.
Cases 27-CD-129 and 27-CD-131
February 25, 1972
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
onal Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
Iarges filed on March 29 and April 2, 1971,' by Rocky
fountain Prestress, Inc. (herein called the Employer
Rock Mountain), alleging that Bricklayers, Masons
id Plasterers' International Union of America, Local
o. 1, AFL-CIO (herein called Bricklayers or Re-
)ondent), had violated Section 8(b) (4)(D) of the Act
y engaging in certain proscribed activity with an ob-
ct of forcing or requiring Rocky Mountain and John
[adden Company (herein called Madden) to assign
.rtain work to employees represented by Bricklayers
ether than to employees represented by Carpenters
'istrict Council of Denver & Vicinity (herein called
arpenters).
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Jerry C.
egler on June 9, 1971. All parties appeared at the
Baring and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
°'idence bearing upon the issues. Briefs have been filed
r Bricklayers, the Employer, and Carpenters; Brick-
yers filed a Motion To Reopen Hearing, and the Em-
oyer filed a response to this motion.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
ational Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
anal Labor Relations Board has delegated its an-
lority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings
ade at the hearing and finds that they are free from
•ejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes
le following findings:
Unless otherwise noted, all the events took place in 1971.
As the findings herein would not be affected by the additional evidence
uch the Bricklayers wishes to introduce, the Motion To Reopen Hearing
denied as being without merit.
)5 NLRB No. 88
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
555
The parties stipulated that Rocky Mountain Pre-
stress, Inc., is a Colorado corporation which will annu-
ally do business outside the State of Colorado in an
amount of approximately $2 million. We find, there-
fore, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Bricklayers
and Carpenters are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Facts
The Employer is a manufacturer and erector of
structural precast and prestressed concrete. Under sub-
contract with Weaver Construction Company, the Em-
ployer was the supplier and erector of the precast, pre-
stressed stairs, walls, and slabs and window surrounds
at the Nedco Apartments for the Elderly (herein called
the Nedco projects). Under subcontract with John
Madden Company, the Employer was the supplier and
erector of all the precast, prestressed, component struc-
tural parts of two multistory office buildings at the
Greenwood Park Development, Englewood, Colorado
(herein called the Madden project). On both of these
projects, the Employer had assigned the erection work
to a composite crew of carpenters and laborers pursu-
ant to collective-bargaining contracts with unions
representing these two groups. The Employer is signa-
tory to a Memorandum of Agreement with Carpenters
signed on September 15, 1969, binding the parties to
the agreement negotiated by the Associated Building
Contractors of Colorado (herein called ABC), an affili-
ate of Associated General Contractors (herein called
AGC), although the Employer is not a member of
ABC. The Employer also had a contract with Laborers
(not a party in the instant proceeding) signed on Au-
gust 1, 1969. The Employer did not have a contract
with the Bricklayers at the time the dispute arose. The
Employer's contracts with both Carpenters and Labor-
ers called for jurisdictional disputes to be submitted to
an arbitral body then in existence, the National Joint
Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes
(herein the old Joint Board).'
' The agreement constituting that organization expired on September 30,
1969. Thereafter, a similarly named body was constituted on an interim, and
then permanent, basis, but without participation of a major contractors
association , the Associated General Contractors. See Bricklayers, Masons
and Plasterers ' International Union of America, Local No. 1, AFL-CIO
(Cont.)
BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS' UNION
ricklayers , Masons and Plasterers ' International
Union of America , Local No. 1, AFL-CIO and
Rocky Mountain Prestress , Inc. and Rocky Moun-
tain Prestress , Inc., John Madden Company and
Carpenters District Council of Denver & Vicinity.
Cases 27-CD-129 and 27-CD-131
February 25, 1972
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
onal Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
iarges filed on March 29 and April 2, 1971,i by Rocky
[ountain Prestress, Inc. (herein called the Employer
- Rock Mountain), alleging that Bricklayers, Masons
id Plasterers' International Union of America, Local
o. 1, AFL-CIO (herein called Bricklayers or Re-
)ondent), had violated Section 8(b) (4)(D) of the Act
r engaging in certain proscribed activity with an ob-
ct of forcing or requiring Rocky Mountain and John
[adden Company (herein called Madden) to assign
rtain work to employees represented by Bricklayers
tther than to employees represented by Carpenters
istrict Council of Denver & Vicinity (herein called
arpenters).
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Jerry C.
egler on June 9, 1971. All, parties appeared at the
Baring and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
'idence bearing upon the issues. Briefs have been filed
t Bricklayers, the Employer, and Carpenters; Brick-
yers filed a Motion To Reopen Hearing, and the Em-
oyer filed a response to this motion.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
ational Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
Dnal Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
iority in this proceeding to ' a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings
ade at the hearing and, finds that they are free from
-ejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes
,e following findings:
Unless otherwise noted, all the events took place in 1971
As the findings herein would not be affected by the additional evidence
rich the Bricklayers wishes to introduce, the Motion To Reopen Hearing
denied as being without merit.
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
555
The parties stipulated that Rocky Mountain Pre-
stress , Inc., is a Colorado corporation which will annu-
ally do business outside the State of Colorado in an
amount of approximately $2 million . We find , there-
fore , that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Bricklayers
and Carpenters are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Facts
The Employer is a manufacturer and erector of
structural precast and prestressed concrete. Under sub-
contract with Weaver Construction Company, the Em-
ployer was the supplier and erector of the precast, pre-
stressed stairs, walls, and slabs and window surrounds
at the Nedco Apartments for the Elderly (herein called
the Nedco projects). Under subcontract with John
Madden Company, the Employer was the supplier and
erector of all the precast, prestressed, component struc-
tural parts of two multistory office buildings at the
Greenwood Park Development, Englewood, Colorado
(herein called the Madden project). On both of these
projects, the Employer had assigned the erection work
to a composite crew of carpenters and laborers pursu-
ant to collective-bargaining contracts with unions
representing these two groups. The Employer is signa-
tory to a Memorandum of Agreement with Carpenters
signed on September 15, 1969, binding the parties to
the agreement negotiated by' the Associated Building
Contractors of Colorado (herein called ABC), an affili-
ate of Associated General Contractors (herein called
AGC), although the Employer is not a member of
ABC. The Employer also had a contract with Laborers
(not a party in' the instant proceeding) signed on Au-
gust 1, 1969. The Employer did not have a contract
with the Bricklayers at the time the dispute arose. The
Employer's contracts with both Carpenters and Labor-
ers called for jurisdictional disputes to be submitted to
an arbitral body then in existence, the National Joint
Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes
(herein the old Joint Board).'
' The agreement constituting that organization expired on September 30,
1969 Thereafter, a similarly named body was constituted on an interim, and
then permanent, basis, but without participation of a major contractors
association, the Associated General Contractors. See Bricklayers, Masons
and Plasterers' International Union of America, Local No. 1, AFL-CIO
(Con':)
)5 NLRB No. 88
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On January 8, 1971, the Employer was first notified
by the reconstituted Joint Board that there was a juris-
dictional dispute between Bricklayers and Carpenters
over the erection of exterior wall panels and columns
at the Employer's Madden project, and a full descrip-
tion of the work in dispute was requested. On January
22, the Employer, notified the Joint Board that it had
not received any communication from Bricklayers, ad-
vised the Joint Board as to the work being done, and
advised that it had assigned the work to carpenters and
laborers, in keeping with its area practice for over 10
years.
Under date of February 25, the Employer was
notified by the Joint Board of Bricklayers claim for
work on exterior brick wall panels on the Nedco
project. On March 12, the Employer advised the Joint
Board that the procedural rules of the Joint Board were
not applicable to the Employer, and that it had as-
signed the work to carpenters and laborers in accord
with its collective-bargaining agreements.
On March 1, the Joint Board notified the Employer
of a dispute involving Bricklayers, Carpenters, and La-
borers over work on exterior wall panels and columns
and interior marble-faced precast panels at the Madden
project.
On March 19, the Employer was advised by the Joint
Board that it had awarded the work on exterior wall
panels at the Madden project, and the work on the
exterior brick wall panels at the Nedco project, to
Bricklayers.
Following a letter dated March 25, from Bricklayers
to the Employer, advising the Employer that Bricklay-
ers planned to engage in informational picketing
against the Employer, and emphasizing in the letter
that the picketing was not an attempt to seek an assign-
ment of the work in question or any work to the mem-
bers of that union, Bricklayers picketed at the Nedco
project beginning March 26, and at the Madden project
beginning March 30, which picketing caused the
charges in the instant cases to be filed on March 29 and
April 2. This picketing caused both jobs to be shut
down. Upon the insistence of the owner of the Madden
project that the work commence again on the job im-
mediately, the Employer, on April 2, advised the brick-
layers that they would assign the erection of the ex-
terior single "T" columns to the bricklayers, although
the award was for exterior wall panels. Following
negotiations between Bricklayers and the Employer, a
contract was signed by the Employer to use bricklayers
for the duration of the job or until the dispute was
otherwise settled by the National Labor Relations
Board or the Joint Board. A similar arrangement was
made on the Nedco project, whereafter pickets were
removed and the jobs reopened. The Employer then
(Lembke Construction Company of Colorado, Inc.), 194 NLRB No 98
advised the Joint Board by letter that although it was
not under the Joint Board's jurisdiction, it had been
affected by the decision and had attempted to comply
with the, decision to remove the Bricklayers pickets. It
further advised that the work awarded to Bricklayers
on the Madden project was not work being done on the
job and that the employment of the bricklayers on the
job had caused considerable expense and confusion.
The Employer also made an effort to have the Unions
submit accurate information to the Joint Board, follow-
ing which Carpenters president also wrote to the Joint
Board.
At its meetings of April 14 and 15, the Joint Board
considered the above letters and voted to rescind the
job decision of March 17 and 18 as it did not reflect the
work actually being performed on the Madden project.
Following this recision of the award, bricklayers were
not used at the Madden project subsequent to April 16.
The bricklayers had worked about 6 days on the Nedco
project, at which time that job had been completed.
On April 27, the Joint Board notified the Employer
of a new claim by Bricklayers on the Madden job for
"exterior structural wall panels and columns and in-
terior marble faced precast concrete panels" and ad-
vised that a meeting was scheduled for May 6. There-
after, the Employer, requested Laborers and Carpenters
to meet with it on May 3, in connection with that claim.
At that time Laborers advised ,the Employer that the
Laborers Union was in "non-compliance" with, the
Joint Board since January 7, and that since that time
it had no representation on the Joint Board and had not
recognized the Joint Board's actions. Likewise, Car-
penters advised it was in "non-complaince" since April
1 and has had no representation on the Joint Board
since that time and it was not participating in Joint
Board proceedings. As a result of this meeting of May
3, the Employer's contracts with Laborers and Carpen-
ters were amended on May 5 to delete reference to the
Joint Board as a method for the settlement of jurisdic-
tional disputes, and the Joint Board was promptly, ad-
vised of this action. On May 6, the Joint Board voted
to defer any action on the Bricklayers claim pending
receipt of more information, and, at the time of the
hearing in the instant case, the Joint Board had taken
no other action.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the setting, aligning,
plumbing, cleaning, patching, pointing, bolting, and/or
welding of exterior wall panels and columns at the
Employer's Madden project, Englewood, Colorado,
and the setting , leveling, aligning, plumbing , cleaning,
patching, pointing, bolting, and/or welding of exterior
brick wall panels at the Nedco project, Denver,
Colorado.
d
BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS' UNION 557
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and Carpenters took the position that
prior to the dispute, ABC (as an affiliate of AGC) had
withdrawn from the Joint Board, and as the parties had
signed the ABC agreement, they are not bound by
awards made by the Joint Board. They further take the
position that Carpenters and Laborers are in "non-
compliance" with the Joint Board, are no longer repre-
sented on the Joint Board, and are not bound by deci-
sions made by that Board. Further, they contend that,
as they had deleted from the contracts the provisions
calling for submission of disputes to the Joint Board
before final determination was made by that Joint
Board, they are not compelled to honor such a deter-
mination. These parties further contend that the Em-
ployer's assignment of the disputed work was proper in
light of certain factors usually considered by the Board
in these matters.
Respondent Bricklayers on the other hand contends
that the Board is without jurisdiction to determine the
merits of the dispute under Section 10(k) of the Act,
since the parties by the terms of their collective-bar-
gaining agreements have agreed upon a method for the
voluntary adjustment of the dispute, arguing that the
AGC's withdrawal from the Joint Board is immaterial
and does not affect the Employer's obligation to abide
by Joint Board decisions. Respondent Bricklayers con-
tends that the notice of hearing must be quashed.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to the determination
of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act it must
be satisfied that (1) there is reasonable cause to believe
that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and (2) the
parties have not agreed upon methods for the voluntary
adjustment of the dispute.
As to (1) above, the record is clear that Bricklayers
began picketing the Employer's Nedco project on
March 26, and the Employer's Madden project on
March 30. Although the Bricklayers letter of March 25
emphasized that the picketing to be conducted was
informational and that it was not seeking an assign-
ment of the work in question for members of Bricklay-
ers, the picketing in question did follow the Bricklayers
demand for the work and its submission of disputes at
the two projects to the Joint Board. Further, the picket-
ing followed closely the award of the work to Bricklay-
ers by the Joint Board which the Employer had failed
to honor. Also, the picketing did have the effect of
causing the closing down of the Nedco and Madden
projects. Accordingly, we find that reasonable cause
exists to believe the Bricklayers picketing violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act.
With respect to (2), the Bricklayers contends that the
Joint Board was the proper forum for determining the
jurisdictional disputes because of Employer's agree-
ments with Carpenters and Laborers that such forum
should be used for that purpose. As stated, the Em-
ployer is party to ABC's current collective-bargaining
agreement with Carpenters, which is effective from
May 1, 1969, to April 30, 1972, and expressly provides
for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes by the "Na-
tional Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional
Disputes."
The contract between Laborers and the Employer,
effective from May 1, 1969, to May 1, 1972, contains
a provision of like import.
Both of these contracts were signed prior to the date
on which the original Joint Board expired and the
AGC withdrew. Subsequently, the new National Joint
Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes was
established. Neither the Employer in this case, ABC,
nor AGC participated in the negotiation or execution
of the new National Joint Board agreements.
The instant case is to a great degree similar to the
Lembke case, 194 NLRB No. 98, recently decided by
this Board (Member Fanning dissenting), where the
employer was a party to the same contract between
ABC and Carpenters as is the Employer in the instant
case. In that case we found that when the parties en-
tered into the contract designating the Joint Board as
the forum for determining jurisdictional disputes, the
obligation to be bound by determinations of that Joint
Board ceased with the cessation of the existence of that
particular Joint Board. As the parties did not intend
that they be bound by the determinations of a subse-
quently formed entity also calling itself the Joint Board,
but in which the ABC was not represented, the Em-
ployer was not bound by any determination made by
the subsequent Joint Board.4
Although the employer in the Lembke case was a
member of the ABC, and the Employer in the instant
case is not, we believe that the same rationale must
apply. It is clear that, when the Employer signed its
contracts, the makeup of the Joint Board was different
than it is now. Also, the Employer did not, subsequent
to the formation of the new Joint Board, agree to be
bound by the determinations of this Joint Board.
Therefore, we will not find that the parties intended to
be so bound. Also, we would not find that the Em-
ployer, by its actions following the submission of the
disputes to the Joint Board by Bricklayers, accepted as
fact that the Joint Board has jurisdiction over it. On the
contrary, although the Employer did inform the Joint
Board of the, work being done at the ,projects, and did
The Lembke case overruled International Association of Heat & Frost
Insulators & Asbestos Workers, Local 28 (Paul Jensen, Inc.), 186 NLRB No.
20
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABORRELATIONS BOARD
assign work to the bricklayers following the picketing,
at all times it continued in its insistence that it was not
subject to the procedures of the Joint Board. This we
believe additionally shows that the Employer did not
intend to be bound by the Joint Board.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the parties in
instant case had not agreed upon methods for the
voluntary adjustment of jurisdictional disputes and
that the instant dispute is properly before the Board for
determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of disputed work after giving due
consideration to and balancing all relevant factors. The
following factors are relevant in making the determina-
tion of the dispute before us:
1. Employer 's assignment and past practice
As stated , the Employer assigned the work of erect-
ing and installing the precast structural concrete at
both the Nedco and Madden projects to its employees
who are represented by Carpenters and Laborers in
accordance with its past practice . The Employer pre-
sented evidence that it customarily assigns this dis-
puted work to its employees represented by Carpenters
and Laborers and has done so for at least 10 years.
2. Area practice
The Employer and Carpenters introduced much evi-
dence to show that it is the practice in the area to assign
the work in dispute to carpenters or composite crews
of carpenters and laborers . Included in this evidence
was testimony that the Employer and one other com-
pany, Prestressed Concrete of Colorado, together do
about 95 percent of the prestressed structural concrete
business in the Denver area . Like the Employer in the
instant case, Prestressed Concrete of Colorado uses
carpenters and laborers , and also occasionally uses
ironworkers . Bricklayers offered no evidence as to area
practice.
3. Collective-bargaining agreements
Prior to the dispute in the instant case the Employer
was not a party to any contract with Bricklayers. As a
result of the picketing earlier described, the Employer
and Bricklayers entered into temporary agreements
covering work at the Nedco and Madden projects only,
and specifically limited to terms ending in the event
that the National Joint Board or the National Labor
Relations Board made a determination awarding the
work to employees other than bricklayers or the work
became completed , whichever was sooner.
The Employer has had contracts with Carpenters
and Laborers since at least 1963 covering the work in
dispute , and has also agreed to assign the work to com-
posite crews of carpenters and laborers in accordance
with a Memorandum of Understanding between Car-
penters and Laborers dated September 16, 1969.
4. Efficiency, economy , integration of
operations , and skills
The Employer has used a composite crew of carpen-
ters and laborers in the erection of its prestressed, pre-
cast structural concrete for many years and has been
very satisfied with the work of these two groups of
employees. According to the testimony of the Em-
ployer 's witnesses , these employees have the skills
needed to do the work efficiently, whereas when the
Employer assigned work temporarily to bricklayers in
April, after the picketing, those bricklayers did not
have the skills to do the work quickly and efficiently
and had to be supervised constantly.
Another factor affecting the efficiency and economy
of the Employer's operation is the idleness resulting
from the use of the bricklayers. Because Bricklayers
claimed only part of the work, it was necessary to retain
the crew of carpenters to do the other work. The tes-
timony shows that the nature of the operation of install-
ing the structure of a building precludes the carpenters
and bricklayers from doing their respective jobs at the
same time . Therefore, in each workday, each of the two
crews is idle up to 50 percent of the time while waiting
for completion of the other crew's work, although both
crews must be paid for a full day.
The evidence also shows that the Bricklayers wage
rates are higher than the Carpenters, thereby adding
considerably to the cost of the job. According to tes-
timony of employer witnesses, if the bricklayers had
been on the two projects throughout their duration, the
projects would have cost an estimated 20 percent more.
The evidence reveals that such an increase would cause
the use of prestressed concrete to drop out of competi-
tion with masonry and poured concrete in the erection
of structures.
The foregoing evidence demonstrates that the assign-
ment of the disputed work to the carpenters results in
greater efficiency on the job, especially in light of the
necessity of having carpenters on the job to do other
work not in dispute herein.
CONCLUSIONS
Upon the record as a whole and after full considera-
tion of all the relevant factors involved we conclude
that Rocky Mountain's employees who are represented
by Carpenters are entitled to the work in dispute. We
reached this conclusion on the Employer' s assignment
of the disputed work to its employees, the fact that the
BRICKLAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS' UNION 559
assignment is consistent with the Employer's past prac-
tice and its current bargaining agreement with Carpen-
ters, the fact that it is consistent with area practice as
evidenced in the record, the fact that the employees
represented by Carpenters possessed the requisite skills
to perform the work, and the fact that such assignment
will result in greater efficiency, economy, and con-
tinuity of the operations. Accordingly, we shall deter-
mine the dispute before us by awarding the work in the
dispute at the Employer's Nedco project in Denver,
Colorado, and Madden project in Englewood,
Colorado, to those employees represented by Carpen-
ters, but not to that Union or its members. In conse-
quence, we also find that Bricklayers is not entitled by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to
force or require the Employer to assign the disputed
work to employees represented by it.
Scope of Award
The Employer, in its brief, requests that the Board's
award be extended to cover all future erection and
installation of prestressed and precast concrete of a
structural nature to be performed by Employer in the
geographical jurisdiction of the Carpenters Union. The
Employer argues that the way it did is work on the two
projects in the instant case is typical of the way it
performs its work on other jobs, and that it is obvious
that Bricklayers is engaged in an effort to secure assign-
ment of Rocky Mountain's work in the future. Al-
though the Board need not restrict its award to a single
job if there is evidence that similar disputes will appear
in the future, we conclude that a broad award is not
clearly justified by the evidence herein. Thus, the
record is not clear with respect to future operations of
the Employer, except that its typical jobs are much the
same as the jobs in the instant case. Nor is it clear with
respect to the future activities of the parties involved.
Therefore, we will limit our award only to the projects
presently under consideration.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes
the following determination of dispute:
1. Employees of Rocky Mountain Prestress, Inc.,
who are represented by Carpenters District Council of
Denver & Vicinity are entitled to perform the work of
setting , aligning , plumbing, cleaning , patching, point-
ing, bolting, and/or welding of exterior wall panels and
columns at the Greenwood Park Development (Mad-
den), Englewood, Colorado, and of exterior brick wall
panels at the Nedco Apartments for the Elderly, Den-
ver, Colorado.
2. Bricklayers , Masons and Plasterers ' International
Union of America, Local No. 1, AFL-CIO, is not enti-
tled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act to force or require Rocky Mountain Prestress, Inc.,
to assign the above work to' employees represented by
it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute, Bricklayers, Masons and
Plasterers' International Union of America, Local No.
1, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 27, in writing, whether or not it will refrain
from forcing or requiring the Employer by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to assign the
work in dispute to employees represented by Bricklay-
ers rather than to employees represented by Carpen-
ters.