C & R Heating Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1999

328 N.L.R.B. 1235 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

PLUMBERS LOCAL 562 (C & R HEATING & SERVICE CO.) 1235
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, Local Union No. 562,
AFL–CIO and C & R Heating & Service Com-
pany, Inc.

Corrigan Company Mechanical Contractors, a Divi-
sion of Corrigan Brothers, Inc. and Sheet Metal
Workers’ International Association, AFL–CIO,
Local Union No. 36. Cases 14–CD–940 and 14–
CD–941
August 20, 1999
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS HURTGEN
AND BRAME
This is a consolidated proceeding under Section 10(k)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, fol-
lowing the filing of charges in Case 14–CD–940 on No-
vember 8, 1996,1 by C & R Heating & Service Com-
pany, Inc. (C & R), and in Case 14-CD-941 on Novem-
ber 13, by Corrigan Company Mechanical Contractors
(Corrigan). It is alleged in each case that United Asso-
ciation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Can-
ada, Local Union No. 562, AFL–CIO (Pipe Fitters) vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in cer-
tain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or re-
quiring the respective Employers to assign certain work
to employees represented by Pipe Fitters rather than to
employees represented by Sheet Metal Workers’ Interna-
tional Association, AFL–CIO, Local Union No. 36
(Sheet Metal Workers).
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at St. Louis,
Missouri, on December 10 and 16 before Hearing Offi-
cer Kathi M. Grampp. C & R, Corrigan, Pipe Fitters,
and Sheet Metal Workers were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. After the
hearing, C & R, Corrigan, and Sheet Metal Workers
filed briefs.
On December 19, Sheet Metal Workers filed a special
appeal of the hearing officer’s decision to revoke Sub-
poena Duces Tecum No. B-266264. The subpoena, re-
quested by Sheet Metal Workers, was directed to John
W. Siscel, Executive Vice President of the Mechanical
Contractors Association of St. Louis, Missouri, Inc.
(MCA), the collective-bargaining representative of
Charging Party Employers with respect to Pipe Fitters.
The subpoena, in essence, seeks production of corre-
spondence, notes, minutes, memoranda, and other docu-
ments referring or relating to Sheet Metal Workers’ con-
tract negotiations or jurisdictional disputes, threats to
strike or picket by Pipe Fitters, or the filing of unfair
labor practice charges with the Board.

1 All dates are 1996 unless otherwise indicated.
Sheet Metal Workers contends that production of
these documents is necessary to demonstrate that the
threats cited to invoke the Board’s authority under Sec-
tion 10(k) of the Act were shams and part of a collusive
effort by the Employers and Pipe Fitters to obtain the
Board’s approval of the current assignments of the work
in dispute. If so, Sheet Metal Workers contends, the
threshold requirement for Section 10(k) proceedings,
that there be reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, would not be satisfied and
the notice of hearing must be quashed.
In their opposition to the special appeal, the Employ-
ers and Siscel assert that the documents requested are not
necessary to decide the issues in this proceeding, and
that the record contains testimony that the threats were
genuine. Moreover, the Employers and Siscel contend
that Sheet Metal Workers sought similar information
through a subpoena duces tecum directed to Pipe Fitters
Business Manager O’Mara but did not call O’Mara to
testify regarding this issue.2 Having declined to obtain
information from a party, the Employers and Siscel ar-
gue, Sheet Metal Workers is not entitled to have its sub-
poena directed to a nonparty enforced.
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. With respect to the
revocation of the subpoena, we find merit in the position
of the Employers and Siscel supporting the hearing offi-
cer’s ruling.
The Board’s authority to decide jurisdictional disputes
under Section 10(k) requires a finding that there is rea-
sonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated. This reasonable cause standard is substantially
lower than that required to establish that the statute has
in fact been violated. In addition, the Board’s Section
10(k) procedure, unlike the unfair labor practice proce-
dure, does not call for assessments of the credibility of
witnesses.
Under the circumstances of the present cases, we find
that the hearing officer properly revoked Sheet Metal
Workers’ subpoena. As detailed herein, the statements
made by a representative of Pipe Fitters to the Employ-
ers clearly constitute threats of economic action, and the
individuals to whom the threats were made testified that
they took them seriously. Sheet Metal Workers has
brought forth no evidence to support its allegation that
the threats were not genuine or were made in collusion
with the Employers. See, e.g., Machinists Local 724
(Holt Cargo), 307 NLRB 1394, 1396 (1992); Teamsters
2 The subpoena directed to O’Mara requested “all correspondence
to or from any representative of any St. Louis area mechanical contrac-
tor” pertaining to the same subjects as the subpoena directed to Siscel.
328 NLRB No. 176
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1236
Local 6 (Anheuser-Busch), 270 NLRB 219, 220 (1984).
In the absence of any evidence contradicting the testi-
mony in the record, the hearing officer properly refused
to permit Sheet Metal Workers to engage in a fishing
expedition through the use of the Board’s subpoena au-
thority.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The parties stipulated that C & R is a Missouri corpo-
ration engaged in business as a nonretail mechanical
construction contractor and annually purchases and re-
ceives goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
for installation at its jobsites from points located outside
the State of Missouri. The parties further stipulated that
Corrigan is a Missouri corporation engaged in business
as a nonretail mechanical construction contractor, and
annually purchases and receives goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 for installation at its job-
sites, and that were shipped directly to that jobsite from
points located outside the State of Missouri. We find
that C & R and Corrigan are employers engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
The parties also stipulated, and we find, that Pipe Fit-
ters and Sheet Metal Workers are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTES
A. Background and Facts of Disputes
1. Case 14–CD–940
C & R employs employees represented by Pipe Fitters
and Sheet Metal Workers, and has contractual relation-
ships with both Unions through separate multiemployer
associations. The collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the MCA and Pipe Fitters is effective from Janu-
ary 1, 1996, through May 31, 2000. At the time of the
hearing in this proceeding, the Sheet Metal and Air Con-
ditioning Contractors National Association, St. Louis
Chapter (SMACNA) and Sheet Metal Workers had
agreed to contract terms for a new collective-bargaining
agreement effective May 1, 1996, through August 31,
2001, to replace the contract that expired April 30, 1996.
The new contract was being prepared for printing and
final signatures, but the wage provisions had already
been implemented.
In September, as part of a subcontract to install a heat-
ing, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system at
the School of Law at Washington University in St.
Louis, C & R began the installation of approximately 75
fin tube radiator units, each of which consists of copper
tubing with fins, mounted on a back plate with hangers
and protected by a cover and end plates. On September
17, Sheet Metal Workers filed a grievance with the Lo-
cal Joint Adjustment Board for the Sheet Metal Industry,
asserting that its contract had been violated by the as-
signment of the work to employees represented by Pipe
Fitters. After receiving the grievance, C & R Executive
Vice President John Eilerman telephoned Sheet Metal
Workers Business Representative John Lorson. Lorson
claimed that the installation of the back plates, covers,
and caps was within the jurisdiction of Sheet Metal
Workers. Lorson repeated this claim in an October tele-
phone conversation with Eilerman. On November 4 or
5, Eilerman informed Pipe Fitters Business Manager Jim
O’Mara that Sheet Metal Workers claimed part of the
work, and O’Mara responded that it was Pipe Fitters
work and that if C & R did anything in terms of chang-
ing the assignment of the work, Pipe Fitters would strike
or picket. C & R continued to assign the work to em-
ployees represented by Pipe Fitters. The original instal-
lation work was completed in November, and the final
revalving work and installation of a few covers were
expected to be completed by the end of December.
2. Case 14–CD–941
Corrigan also has a collective-bargaining agreement
with Pipe Fitters through its membership in the MCA.
Corrigan has no contractual relationship with Sheet
Metal Workers. However, Lyon Sheet Metal (Lyon),
which like Corrigan is an unincorporated division of
Corrigan Brothers, Inc., has a collective-bargaining
agreement with Sheet Metal Workers. Corrigan and
Lyon operate out of separate locations with separate
work forces, management, equipment, and labor rela-
tions programs.
a. Anheuser-Busch Stockhouse 19
In early 1995, Corrigan obtained a subcontract for
tank installation at a new Anheuser-Busch beer storage
facility in St. Louis. The subcontract required, in part,
the installation of 21 sleeves fabricated by the general
contractor. Sleeves are rectangular pieces of pipe or
plate, welded together and installed on a deck or in a
wall before concrete is poured, for the purpose of main-
taining an opening in the concrete through which pipes,
ducts, or equipment will pass. The particular sleeves
involved in Corrigan’s subcontract are 40–50 inches in
diameter and intended for the installation of “catch-o’-
pack” piping units as part of an air conditioning system
that was to be installed by Rock Hill Mechanical, a sheet
metal contractor. Corrigan assigned the sleeve installa-
tion work to its employees represented by Pipe Fitters.
The installation began in early 1996 and ended in June,
with only repair work remaining. The most recent re-
pairs prior to the hearing were performed on November
16.
On October 30, Corrigan President Tom Corrigan
learned from Lyon President Mike Corrigan that Sheet
Metal Workers had filed a grievance against Lyon in
February, alleging that Lyon had assigned the sleeve
work to Pipe Fitters in violation of its contract with
PLUMBERS LOCAL 562 (C & R HEATING & SERVICE CO.) 1237
Sheet Metal Workers.3 When Tom Corrigan informed
O’Mara of Sheet Metal Workers’ grievance, O’Mara
stated that the sleeves, as part of a mechanical package,
were within the jurisdiction of Pipe Fitters, and that any
reassignment of the work to employees represented by
Sheet Metal Workers would be met with a strike. In a
letter dated November 13, O’Mara reiterated Pipe Fit-
ters’ claim to the work and threatened to strike or picket
if the work were assigned to Sheet Metal Workers-
represented employees.
b. MEMC project
Corrigan was also awarded a subcontract to install an
HVAC system and a scrubber system at the O’Fallon,
Missouri facility of MEMC, a manufacturer of silicon
wafers for computers. The scrubber system collects con-
taminated air, which is then flushed with a flushing
agent, cleaned, and discharged into the atmosphere. The
scrubber consists of three parts, a dirty side that collects
the contaminated air, the scrubber equipment itself, and
a clean air side that releases the cleaned air. Corrigan
assigned the dirty side and the scrubber equipment to
employees represented by Pipe Fitters, and expected to
assign the clean air side to employees represented by
Sheet Metal Workers through a later subcontract.
About November 4, after learning that another me-
chanical contractor at MEMC had received a claim from
Sheet Metal Workers for all of the scrubber work, Corri-
gan Vice President Jim Corrigan contacted Larry
Tucker, a Sheet Metal Workers business representative,
to find out that Union’s position. Tucker claimed the
clean side and dirty side work for employees represented
by Sheet Metal Workers, asserting that only the installa-
tion of the scrubber itself is within the jurisdiction of
Pipe Fitters. After Jim Corrigan told Tom Corrigan
about Sheet Metal Workers’ claim to the work, Tom
Corrigan contacted O’Mara, who stated that the work on
the dirty side and the scrubber was within the jurisdic-
tion of Pipe Fitters and threatened to strike if Corrigan
reassigned the work. The claim of the work and the
threat were restated in a November 13 letter from Pipe
Fitters. Corrigan did not change its assignment of the
work, which began approximately 2 weeks before the
hearing in this proceeding and was expected to conclude
about mid-January 1997.
B. Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is identified in the notice of hear-
ing.4 In Case 14–CD–940, the work in dispute involves

3 After a deadlock before the local grievance panel, the grievance
was, at the time of the hearing, subject to appeal to the next level of the
contractual grievance procedure.
4 Although a witness testified that Sheet Metal Workers also
claimed jurisdiction over the installation of the end caps in Case 14–
CD–940, and another witness, testifying about the work at the An-
heuser-Busch jobsite in Case 14–CD–941, referred specifically to
sleeves in mechanical packages, we note that the descriptions of the
the installation of covers and backs on fin tube radiators
at the construction site of the Washington University
School of Law in St. Louis, Missouri. The work in dis-
pute in Case 14–CD–941 involves the installation of
sheet metal duct sleeves at Stockhouse 19, Anheuser-
Busch, St. Louis, Missouri; and the installation of the
dirty side intake piping of the scrubber system at the
MEMC facility in O’Fallon, Missouri.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Employers C & R and Corrigan contend that there is
reasonable cause to believe that Pipe Fitters violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act and therefore the Board
must make a determination of the merits of the disputes.
C & R and Corrigan contend that the factors of collec-
tive-bargaining agreements, employer preference and
past practice, industry practice, relative skill, and, with
respect to the disputed work of C & R, a previous deci-
sion by a Joint Jurisdictional Committee of area contac-
tors, support an award of the work to employees repre-
sented by Pipe Fitters.
Sheet Metal Workers asserts that the notice of hearing
should be quashed, alleging that the Employers and Pipe
Fitters are acting in collusion to obtain access to the Sec-
tion 10(k) procedure and a Board determination favoring
the current assignment of the disputed work to employ-
ees represented by Pipe Fitters. Sheet Metal Workers
argues that failure to recognize Pipe Fitters’ threats as
shams will encourage abuse of the Board’s processes.
Sheet Metal Workers contends that, because the disputed
work had largely been completed by the time of the
various threats and the Employers did not consider reas-
signing the work, the threats carried no coercive impact.
Based on the same considerations, Sheet Metal Workers
maintains that there were no competing claims. In addi-
tion, with respect to the MEMC project, Sheet Metal
Workers, relying on Laborers Indiana District Council
(Capitol Drilling), 318 NLRB 809 (1995), asserts that
there are no competing claims because any dispute it
may have concerning that work would be with Lyon,
with which it has a collective-bargaining relationship.
Sheet Metal Workers further contends that, if the
Board finds the statute applicable and determines the
disputes, the work should be awarded to employees it
represents based on the factors of past and area practice
and efficiency. Sheet Metal Workers also maintains that
such an award of the work is required in accordance with
a 1956 jurisdictional agreement between the two Unions.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination of
the disputes pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must
be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated.
work in dispute in the notice of hearing were not amended, and that the
parties’ contentions on brief are consistent with the notice of hearing.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1238
In Case 14–CD–940, Pipe Fitters threatened to strike
or picket if C & R did anything in terms of changing the
assignment of the disputed work. In Case 14–CD–941,
Pipe Fitters orally threatened to strike, then threatened in
writing to strike or picket, if the work at Anheuser-
Busch Stockhouse 19 were reassigned. Similarly, Pipe
Fitters threatened to strike if the disputed work at
MEMC were reassigned to employees represented by
Sheet Metal Workers. In light of the foregoing, and the
discussion above pertaining to Sheet Metal Workers’
subpoena, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
Moreover, we do not find merit in Sheet Metal Work-
ers’ contention that there are no competing claims with
respect to some of the disputed work. We find, contrary
to Sheet Metal Workers’ assertion, that none of the dis-
puted work had been completed at the time of the re-
spective threats by Pipe Fitters. Although the initial in-
stallation of the sleeves at the Anheuser-Busch facility
was finished before the threat as to that work, the instal-
lation project also involved repairs and maintenance of
the sleeves during subsequent steps in the construction,
so that the work had not yet been delivered under the
contract. In addition, we find that Sheet Metal Workers’
contention that there are no competing claims as to the
disputed sleeve work because its grievance was filed
against Lyon rather than Corrigan is inconsistent with its
apparent theory, in filing the grievance, that Corrigan
and Lyon are a single employer.5
The parties have stipulated that there exists no agreed-
upon method for voluntary adjustment of the disputes
within the meaning of Section 10(k). Accordingly, the
disputes are properly before the Board for determination.
E. Merits of the Disputes
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirma-
tive 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 balancing the factors in-
volved 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 disputes.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements
A. Neither Pipe Fitters nor Sheet Metal Workers has
been certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees performing the disputed
work for either of the Employers. Accordingly, this fac-
tor is not helpful in determining the disputes.

5 Sheet Metal Workers provides no basis for that theory here, and
we reject it below.
C & R is a signatory to multiemployer collective-
bargaining agreements with both Pipe Fitters and Sheet
Metal Workers. The Pipe Fitters’ agreement states that
its terms apply to work by the signatory employers
within the jurisdiction of Pipe Fitters, which is described
in the contract to include, inter alia,

All piping, setting and hanging of all units and fixtures
for air-conditioning, cooling, heating, roof cooling, re-
frigerating, ice making, humidifying, dehumidifying,
dehydrating, by any method, and the changing and
testing, servicing of all work after completion.

The agreement with Sheet Metal Worker states that its
terms apply to employees engaged in, inter alia,

the manufacture, fabrication, assembling, handling,
erection, installation, dismantling, conditioning, ad-
justment, alteration, repairing and servicing of all fer-
rous or nonferrous metal work and all other materials
used in lieu thereof and all air-veyor systems and air-
handling systems regardless of material used including
the setting of all equipment and reinforcements in con-
nection therewith . . . .

Among the types of sheet metal work specified as within
the Union’s jurisdiction is the following.

Any and all types of sheet metal work specified for use
in connection with or incidental to direct, indirect or
other types of heating, ventilating, air conditioning and
cooling systems; including risers, stacks, ducts, S
strips, dampers, casings, recess boxes, outlets, radiator
enclosures, exhausts, ventilators, frames, grilles, lou-
vers, registers, cabinets, fans and motors . . . .

In view of these provisions, we find that each collective-
bargaining agreement arguably covers the disputed work
involving the radiator covers and backs in Case 14–CD–
940. Therefore, this factor neither favors nor disfavors C &
R’s current assignment of the work.
B. Corrigan, like C & R, has a collective-bargaining
agreement with Pipe Fitters through the Mechanical
Contractors Association. Corrigan has no agreement
with Sheet Metal Workers. Sheet Metal Workers argues
that because Lyon Sheet Metal, another unincorporated
division of Corrigan Brothers, is party to a contract with
Sheet Metal Workers, the disputed work should have
been performed by employees employed by Lyon and
represented by Sheet Metal Workers. Sheet Metal
Workers has not, however, provided any basis for find-
ing that Corrigan and Lyon are a single employer.
Therefore, this factor favors Corrigan’s current assign-
ment of the disputed work to employees represented by
Pipe Fitters at each jobsite.
PLUMBERS LOCAL 562 (C & R HEATING & SERVICE CO.) 1239
2. Company preference and past practice
A. C & R Executive Vice President Eilerman testified
that, when C & R performs the installation of single
units of finned tube radiation, such as those at Washing-
ton University, it traditionally assigns the work, includ-
ing the installation of backs and covers, to its employees
represented by Pipe Fitters. When the job involves a
wall-to-wall installation, on the other hand, the work is
assigned to employees represented by Sheet Metal
Workers. Eilerman further testified that C & R prefers
to continue this method of assignment. We find that the
factors of company preference and past practice favor
assignment of the work to C & R’s employees repre-
sented by Pipe Fitters.
B. The record shows that Corrigan has assigned the
installation of sleeves at the Anheuser-Busch facility in
the past to employees represented by Pipe Fitters, and
that it has assigned that work at other locations to Pipe
Fitters-represented employees or to plumbers. Tom Cor-
rigan also testified that Corrigan has installed 30 to 40
scrubbers since the 1960s, and that its practice has been
to assign work on the dirty side of scrubbers to Pipe Fit-
ters-represented employees, and work on the clean side
of the system to employees represented by Sheet Metal
Workers or, in cases of large industrial applications, to
boilermakers. He testified that in the MEMC project the
clean side work would be subcontracted to another com-
pany and performed by Sheet Metal Workers-
represented employees. Tom Corrigan stated that Corri-
gan preferred to assign the disputed work to Pipe Fitter-
represented employees. Therefore, company preference
and past practice support the award of the work to Corri-
gan’s Pipe Fitter-represented employees.
3. Area practice
A. With respect to the disputed work at Washington
University, Eilerman testified that other local companies
assign work of this type to employees represented by
Pipe Fitters. O’Mara also testified that the area practice
is to assign single-unit radiator installation work to
crews consisting entirely of Pipe Fitters-represented em-
ployees. Sheet Metal Workers presented no testimony
that area practice supported its claim for the disputed
work. Under these circumstances, we find that area
practice favors C & R’s current assignment of the dis-
puted work.
B. Tom Corrigan testified that mechanical contractors
routinely assign to their Pipe Fitters-represented em-
ployees work involving the installation of sleeves when
that work is bid as part of mechanical packages. He fur-
ther testified that employees represented by Sheet Metal
Workers also may install sleeves for their own work.
Mike Corrigan testified that Lyon employees represented
by Sheet Metal Workers have installed sleeves for sheet
metal duct work, and a Lyon employee represented by
Sheet Metal Workers testified that he and his coworkers
have installed sleeves for duct work, exhaust, and
HVAC. A Sheet Metal Workers-represented employee
of another contractor testified, on the other hand, that he
had never installed sleeves during his 14 years working
in the area, though he further testified that he had not, to
his knowledge, been on jobs where Pipe Fitter-
represented employees had installed the sleeves. Sheet
Metal Workers presented testimony that each craft in-
stalls the sleeves necessary for its own work, but Mike
Corrigan testified that this is not the area practice. Based
on this conflicting evidence, we find that this factor does
not favor an award of the disputed work to either group
of employees.
With respect to the disputed work on the scrubber at
the MEMC facility, Tom Corrigan testified that the area
practice of the members of the MCA is to assign work
on the dirty side and the equipment side of scrubber sys-
tems to employees represented by Pipe Fitters. Corri-
gan’s Executive Vice President, Jim Corrigan, also testi-
fied that work on the dirty side of scrubbers is consid-
ered the work of Pipe Fitters-represented employees,
although he understood that Lyon has performed some
scrubber work at MEMC and believed that the work was
assigned to Sheet Metal Workers-represented employ-
ees. O’Mara testified regarding two scrubber installation
projects performed by other contractors using Pipe Fit-
ters-represented employees. Based on the foregoing, we
find that the area practice favors an award of the dis-
puted work at the MEMC facility to employees repre-
sented by Pipe Fitters.
4. Relative skills
A. According to Eilerman, the disputed work involv-
ing the covers and backs of the finned tube radiators at
Washington University is not highly skilled work, and
that the same skills and tools are used for single-unit and
wall-to-wall installations. Eilerman further stated, how-
ever, that C & R is satisfied with the performance of the
work by Pipe Fitter-represented employees. We find
that this factor does not favor or disfavor the award of
the work to C & R’s employees as currently assigned.
B. The record shows that Pipe Fitters-represented
employees routinely perform installations of sleeves.
Tom Corrigan testified that it is important that the loca-
tion and dimension of the sleeves be precise in accor-
dance with specifications. The record also indicates,
however, that employees represented by Sheet Metal
Workers, Plumbers, and Iron Workers also install
sleeves. We therefore find that this factor does not favor
or disfavor an award of the disputed work to Corrigan’s
employees represented by Pipe Fitters.
Tom Corrigan testified that the disputed work on the
scrubber system requires particular skills. The work
involves toxic chemicals that are highly corrosive and
must not be permitted to escape. In addition, the em-
ployees perform orbital welding, which involves fusing
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1240
materials together rather than joining them by adding
metal to them. Tom Corrigan testified that Corrigan
employees receive training and certification in orbital
welding through the Pipe Fitters union hall and the
equipment manufacturers. He stated that the Pipe Fit-
ters-represented employees are very adept at this skill.
We find that the factor of relative skills favors an award
of the disputed work at the MEMC facility to Corrigan’s
employees represented by Pipe Fitters.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
Eilerman testified that C & R considers it economical
and efficient to assign the disputed work at Washington
University to its employees represented by Pipe Fitters.
Similarly, Tom Corrigan testified that the most efficient
and economical assignment of the disputed work at the
Anheuser-Busch and MEMC facilities is the current as-
signment to Corrigan’s Pipe Fitter-represented employ-
ees. We find that the factor of economy and efficiency
of operations favors an award of the work in dispute to
the Employers’ employees as currently assigned.
6. Prior jurisdictional dispute determinations
C & R presented evidence that the present jurisdic-
tional dispute concerning the work at Washington Uni-
versity was considered by a Joint Jurisdictional Commit-
tee established for the purpose of resolving disputes be-
tween Pipe Fitters and Sheet Metal Workers and com-
posed of various local contractor members of the MCA
and SMACNA.6 C & R introduced testimony by Eiler-
man, as well as the minutes of a February 14 committee
meeting, stating that the committee awarded the work to
employees represented by Pipe Fitters based on the local
past practice. Eilerman testified that the Unions had
agreed to be bound by the decisions of the committee,
and the Employers, in their brief, cite a provision in the
Sheet Metal Workers’ collective-bargaining agreement
that

If a contractor is signatory to a labor agreement with
more than one union and a jurisdictional dispute arises
between the crafts the contractor employs . . . [t]he
contractors and the union agree to abide by any deci-
sion made by any local or national Jurisdictional Dis-
putes Board.

The record, however, does not provide evidence as to
whether the committee was a “Jurisdictional Disputes
Board” within the meaning of this provision. In addition,
the record includes a February 26 letter from Sheet Metal
Workers to MCA President Siscel protesting the commit-
tee’s determination. The letter states that Sheet Metal
Workers, contrary to the meeting minutes, did not agree to
the guidelines applied by the committee and that, in light of
the committee’s decisions favoring Pipe Fitters, Sheet

6 No party asserts that the committee represents an agreed-upon
method for resolving the instant dispute.
Metal Workers could not be expected to continue to submit
disputes to the Board.
In light of the foregoing, we do not find that this factor
favors or disfavors an award of the disputed work to C &
R’s employees represented by Pipe Fitters.
7. Interunion agreements
The record includes a 1956 agreement between the
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry and the Sheet
Metal Workers’ International Association, supplemented
by explanatory diagrams dated September 30, 1958. The
documents purport to define the agreed-upon work juris-
dictions of employees represented by the two Unions.
The 1956 agreement states in pertinent part:

The installation of all room radiators, convectors and
fin-type radiators when enclosures are made to fit the
radiator or convector and shipped to the job as a manu-
factured unit shall be handled, unloaded and installed
in their entirety by members of the United Association.
An exception shall apply when an enclosure is made
up and installed to cover space beyond the convector
radiator, or used or installed beyond the cover of the
manufactured convector unit to fill out a space between
the end of the window bay and the radiator enclosure,
in which case the handling, unloading and installation
of such enclosure shall be the work of members of the
Sheet Metal Workers.

One of the 1958 diagrams shows a one-section convector
cover, and indicates the distance between the end of the coil
and the end of the convector cover. A legend states, “under
8” = U.A. 8” or “over = Sheet Metal Workers.” Eilerman
testified that Lorson had asserted to him that the diagram
meant that if the finned tube radiation was more than 8
inches from the end plate, the work must be assigned to
employees represented by Sheet Metal Workers. Eilerman
testified that he did not know the distance between these
points on the disputed work. Although the record includes
documents showing specifications for the units installed by
C & R at Washington University, neither these documents
nor witness testimony clearly states the measurement that is
needed to apply the criteria shown on the 1958 diagram. In
addition, the record does not show that C & R has agreed to
be bound by the agreement between the Unions, or that the
area and industry practice in fact conforms to the terms of
the agreement. Based on the record evidence, we cannot
find that the interunion agreement favors or disfavors the
current assignment to Pipe Fitter-represented employees.
Conclusions
After considering all of the relevant factors, we con-
clude that the factors favor the award of the disputed
work to the employees represented by Pipe Fitters con-
sistent with the Employers’ current assignments. As to
C & R, we conclude that the employees represented by
PLUMBERS LOCAL 562 (C & R HEATING & SERVICE CO.) 1241
Pipe Fitters are entitled to perform the disputed work
based on company preference and past practice, area
practice, and economy and efficiency of operations. As
to Corrigan, we award the disputed work at Anheuser-
Busch Stockhouse 19 to the employees represented by
Pipe Fitters based on collective-bargaining agreements,
company preference and past practice, and economy and
efficiency of operations; and we award the disputed
work at the MEMC facility to the Pipe Fitters-
represented employees based on collective-bargaining
agreements, company preference and past practice, area
practice, relative skills, and economy and efficiency of
operations.
In making these determinations, we are awarding the
work to the employees represented by Pipe Fitters, not to
the Union or its members.
Scope of the Awards
In the hearing in the present proceeding, Pipe Fitters
requested that the Board issue a broad award in order to
avoid the necessity to return to the Board based on Sheet
Metal Workers repeated claims to work performed by
Pipe Fitters, including through grievances and claims for
monetary relief. Sheet Metal Workers asserts that if the
work is awarded to employees represented by Pipe Fit-
ters, the Board should issue a narrow award. Sheet
Metal Workers argues that, even though it intends to
claim similar work in the future, it has not resorted to
unlawful means in support of its claims to disputed
work. Conversely, if the Board awards the work to em-
ployees it represents, Sheet Metal Workers argues that a
broad award is appropriate based on what Sheet Metal
Workers asserts is Pipe Fitters’ proclivity to violate Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) in order to obtain work.
In order to grant a broad award in a jurisdictional de-
termination, the Board requires evidence that: (1) the
disputed work has been a source of controversy in the
relevant geographic area and that disputes may recur;
and (2) the charged party has a proclivity to engage in
wrongful conduct in order to obtain work similar to that
in dispute. Bricklayers (Sesco, Inc.), 303 NLRB 401
(1991). We do not find that a broad award is appropriate
in this proceeding. Although the record indicates that
there is an ongoing dispute regarding work jurisdiction
between Pipe Fitters and Sheet Metal Workers,7 each of
the present disputes involves a distinct type of work.
Therefore, even if we were to conclude that other dis-
putes between these Unions are likely to arise in the fu-
ture, we could not anticipate the nature of the work that
would be disputed or the likelihood that we would award
the work to Pipe Fitters-represented employees, as we do
in this proceeding. In addition, we find that there is no
sufficient basis for determining that Pipe Fitters has a
proclivity to violate Section 8(b)(4)(D). Accordingly,
our award in these cases is limited to the controversies
that gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES
The National Labor Relations Board makes the fol-
lowing Determination of Disputes.
1. Employees of C & R Heating & Service Company,
Inc., represented by United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Indus-
try of the United States and Canada, Local Union No.
562, AFL–CIO, are entitled to perform the installation of
covers and backs on the tube radiators at the construction
site of the Washington University School of Law in St.
Louis, Missouri.
2. Employees of Corrigan Company Mechanical Con-
tractors, a Division of Corrigan Brothers, Inc., repre-
sented by United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of
the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 562,
AFL–CIO, are entitled to perform the installation of
sheet metal duct sleeves at Stockhouse 19, Anheuser-
Busch, St. Louis, Missouri.
3. Employees of Corrigan Company Mechanical Con-
tractors, a Division of Corrigan Brothers, Inc., repre-
sented by United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of
the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 562,
AFL–CIO, are entitled to perform the installation of the
dirty side intake piping of the scrubber system at the
MEMC facility in O’Fallon, Missouri.

7 The parties in this proceeding stipulated that the Board could take
judicial notice of the official documents filed in three other disputes
involving the same Unions.