Carpenters, Local 67

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 289 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

CARPENTERS, LOCAL 67
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, Local 67 and Boston and
Vicinity Carpenters District Council (Aberthaw
Construction Co.) and Associated General Contrac-
tors of Massachusetts , Inc. and Laborers ' Interna-
tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local
223
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, Local 67 and Boston and
Vicinity Carpenters District Council (The Volpe
Construction Co., Inc.) and Associated General
Contractors of Massachusetts, Inc. and Laborers'
International Union of North America , AFL-CIO,
Local 223
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 67 (Franchi Construction Co., Inc.)
and Associated General Contractors of Massachu-
setts, Inc. and Laborers ' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, Local 22
Laborers' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local 22 (C. Levesque Co., Inc.) and
Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts,
Inc. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, Local 218
Laborers ' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local 429 (Spalt Associates) and
Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts,
Inc. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 49. Cases
1-CD-322, 1-CD-323, 1-CD-328, 1-CD-330,
and I-CD-332
January 10, 1974
DECISION, DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTES, AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING IN PART
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
This is a consolidated proceeding under Section
10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, following the filing of charges in Cases
I-CD-322 and 1-CD-323 on September 21, 1972, by
I Hereinafter AGC.
2 Hereinafter Aberthaw
S Hereinafter Volpe.
4 Hereinafter Franchi
s Hereinafter Levesque.
6 Hereinafter Spalt
7 Hereinafter Carpenters' Local 67
289
Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts,
Inc.,' on behalf of two of its member employers,
Aberthaw Construction Company2 and Volpe Con-
struction Company; 3 and the filing of a charge in
Case 1-CD-328 on October 10, 1972, amended on
October 11, 1972, by AGC, on behalf of one of its
member employers, Franchi Construction Company,
Inc.; 4 and the filing of a charge in Case I-CD-330
on October 12, 1972, by AGC, on behalf of C.
Levesque Co., Inc.; 5 and the filing of a charge in
Case 1-CD-332 on October 25, 1972, by AGC, on
behalf of the Spalt Associates.6 It is alleged in Cases
1-CD-322, 1-CD-323, and 1-CD-328 that United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local 67, AFL-CIO,7 and Boston and Vicinity
Carpenters District Councils violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain
proscribed activity with an object of forcing or
requiring the involved Employer to assign certain
work to employees represented by Carpenters' Local
67 rather than, in Cases 1-CD-322 and l-CD-323.
to employees represented by Laborers ' International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 223,9
and in Case 1-CD-328 to employees represented by
Laborers' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO. Local 22. 10 It is alleged in Case
l-CD-330 that Laborers' Local 22 violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain
proscribed activity with an object of forcing or
requiring the involved Employer to assign certain
work to employees represented by Laborers' Local
22 rather than to employees represented by United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, Local 218.11 Finally, in Case 1-CD-332,
it is alleged that Laborers' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, Local 429,12 violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain
proscribed activity with an object of forcing or
requiring the involved Employer to assign certain
work to employees represented by Laborers' Local
429 rather than to employees represented by United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, Local 49.1.1
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Boston,
Massachusetts, on November 24 and December 4, 5,
and 7, 1972, and March 20 and 21, 1973, before
Hearing Officer Thomas J. Flynn. All parties
appearing were afforded full opportunity to be
heard. to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues. There-
" Hereinafter Carpenters ' District Council
e Hereinafter Laborers' Local 223.
10 Hereinafter Laborers' Local 22
11 Hereinafter Carpenters' Local 218
12 Hereinafter Laborers' Local 429
1 i Hereinafter Carpenters' Local 49
208 NLRB No. 23
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
after, a brief was filed on behalf of the Carpenters'
Locals and the Carpenters' District Council.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds they are free
from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the briefs and
the entire record in this proceeding and hereby
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
The parties agree to the following stipulations:
AGC is an association representing employers
engaged in the construction and related industries.
Volpe, Franchi, and Aberthaw are three of its
members.
Aberthaw Construction Co. is a Massachusetts
corporation engaged in construction and annually
receives from points outside the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts goods valued in excess of $50,000.
Franchi Construction Co., Inc., is a Massachusetts
corporation engaged in construction and annually
receives from points outside the Commonwealth
goods valued in excess of $50,000.
C. Levesque Co., Inc., is a Massachusetts corpo-
ration engaged in the installation of dry wall. The
Company annually receives from points outside the
Commonwealth goods valued in excess of $50,000.
salt Associates Co. is a sole proprietorship located
at Hingham, Massachusetts, engaged in the installa-
tion of kitchen cabinets. The Company annually
receives from points outside the Commonwealth
goods valued in excess of $50,000.
Accordingly, we find that the Companies are
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LA13OR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Carpen-
ters' Local 67, Carpenters' District Council, Carpen-
t 'rs' Local 218, Carpenters' Local 49, Laborers'
I ocal 223, Laborers' Local 22, and Laborers' Local
429 are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. IHE DISPUTES
A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute in these cases involves three
different tasks. In Case l-CD-322, the dispute
concerns the stripping of forms. Forms are made of
metal or wood; they can be preformed or custom
made for the shape desired. The forms are used to
shape poured concrete until it sets. Then the
spanners, locking the forms together, are loosened,
and the forms are dismantled. The forms are
thereafter stored for further use or erected at another
site.
In Cases 1-CD-323, l-CD-328, and 1-CD-332,
the dispute concerns the unloading of kitchen
cabinets. The cabinets arrive by truck; it normally
takes 2 to 3 hours to unload a truck.
In Case 1-CD-330, the dispute concerns the
unloading of dry wall. Dry wall is composed of
plaster of paris sandwiched between two layers of
composition paper with a finished side and a rough
side. The dry wall sheets come in couples with the
finished sides facing each other and bound together
along the edges by tape. Dry wall arrives by truck; it
takes about 2 hours to unload a truck.
B. Background and Facts
The Unions claiming the work described above are
Carpenters and Laborers.
1. Case l-CD-322
Aberthaw is the general contractor at the 100
Summer Street Project in Boston, Massachusetts.
According to Robert Swamm, Aberthaw's vice
president, Aberthaw, as it has done on past projects,
assigned the stripping of forms on this project to a
composite crew of carpenters and laborers.
Aberthaw Superintendent Shirley Fritter testified
that around the first of July he was visited at the
jobsite by Edson Thompson, business agent for
Local 33 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America,14 and Fred Fletcher, general
agent of the Carpenters' District Council. Fritter
testified that Thompson threatened to shut down the
jobsite unless Carpenters' Local 33 received the
work. Swamm also testified that Thompson and
Fletcher demanded the stripping assignment.
Thompson and Fletcher admit claiming the work,
but they deny that they made any threats. No strike
or walkout occurred at the j obsite.
2. Case I-CD-323
Volpe is the general contractor at the Church Street
Project in Boston, Massachusetts.
In early September 1972, Joe Clarke, director of
industrial relations for AGC, received a phone call
from Fletcher advising him that there appeared to be
14 Hereinafter Carpenters' Local 33
CARPENTERS , LOCAL 67
a problem arising on the Volpe project. The problem
involved the unloading of the kitchen cabinets.
Clarke contacted Volpe and was advised that the
assignment of the work had been made to Laborers'
Local 223. On September 12, Arthur Flamm, counsel
for Carpenters' Local 67 and Carpenters' District
Council, called Clarke and sought arbitration of the
dispute. Clarke replied that the new contract, under
which Flamm sought arbitration, had not yet been
approved by Construction Industry Stabilization
Committee (established by Executive Order 11588 on
March 28, 1972) and was therefore not yet binding
on the parties. Flamm stated that he would advise his
client to remove its men if there was no arbitration,
and Fletcher advised Clarke that he would follow his
counsel's advice.
Frank Marcucello, superintendent on the Volpe
jobsite, testified that McSherry, business agent for
Carpenters' Local 67, and Fletcher visited the jobsite,
stated the work should be assigned to carpenters, and
they would not let the matter drop. Later. a strike
occurred on or about September 27, 1972. Fletcher
testified that he took the men off the job because of
Volpe's failure to go to arbitration.
3. Case 1-CD-328
Franchi is the general contractor for the Hotel
Somerset project in Boston, Massachusetts. The
project entails the renovation of the existing hotel to
apartments. Joseph Lazo, superintendent of Franchi,
testified that he assigned, in accord with past
practice, the work of unloading the kitchen cabinets
to Laborers' Local 22. Thereafter, according to Lazo,
the carpenter shop steward told him to give the work
to carpenters or he would pull the men off the job.
Lazo stated that he offered a composite crew, but the
shop steward rejected this and removed the carpen-
ters.
Thereafter, McSherry arrived and attempted to get
the men to return to work. Lazo testified that
McSherry was unable to persuade the men to go
back to work. McSherry stated that the men did not
return to work because it was almost quitting time.
The carpenters did return to work the following
morning.
4. Case I-CD-330
Levesque is the dry wall subcontractor at the
Turnkey project at 640 Salem Street, Malden,
Massachusetts.
James Zieff, an official for the general contractor
at the Malden Turnkey project, testified that Lou
Manderini, business agent of Laborers' Local 22,
demanded the assignment of unloading dry wall for
Laborers' Local 22. Zieff informed Manderini that
291
the subcontractor, Levesque, was in charge of the dry
wall and suggested that they meet. Manderini
demanded a full laborers crew and would not settle
for a composite crew. Levesque and Manderini were
unable to settle the dispute. Thereafter, the Laborers
conducted a 1-day work stoppage on or about
October 17, 1972.
5. Case 1-CD-332
Spalt Associates is the subcontractor responsible
for the installation of kitchen cabinets at Merrimac
Plaza project in Lowell, Massachusetts.
Vincent Farrell, superintendent for the general
contractor on the Merrimac Plaza project, testified
that George Emerson, president and business agent
of Laborers' Local 429, agreed to unload a forthcom-
ing truckload of cabinets with a composite crew of
laborers and carpenters. However, Carpenters' Local
49 opposed a composite crew, and Richard Scott,
superintendent for Spalt, assigned the work to the
Carpenters' Local 49. Emerson told Farrell that
Laborers would picket the site. On or about October
13, 1972, when a truck arrived with cabinets, the
laborers blocked the trailer from backing onto the
site for unloading.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employers in all cases argue that there is
reasonable cause to believe that in each case the
particular Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act and therefore the Board must make a
determination of the merits of each dispute. The
Employers further contend that their respective
assignments of work were proper and should be
affirmed by the Board.
Carpenters contends that in Cases l-CD-322,
1-CD-323, and I-CD-328 there is no reasonable
cause to believe that the particular Carpenters' Local
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. In Cases
1-CD-322 and 1-CD-323, Carpenters argues that its
actions were taken in order to obtain arbitration of
the dispute and not in order to obtain the work. In
Case 1-CD-328. Carpenters contends that Local 67
did not cause or ratify the work stoppage, and
therefore the notice of hearing should be quashed. In
regard to Cases 1-CD-330 and l-CD-332. Carpen-
ters argues that these disputes are properly before the
Board. Further, Carpenters states that, based on
reasons such as past practice and employer economy
and efficiency, the work assignments made by the
respective subcontractors were correct and should be
affirmed by the Board.
Laborers contends that in Cases 1-CD-322,
1-CD-323, and I-CD-328 relevant factors such as
area practice preponderate in favor of having the
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work assigned to laborers. In Case 1-CD-330,
Laborers states there is no reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.
However, if the Board makes an award in Case
1-CD-330, Laborers argues that, in accord with
substantial area practice, it should be awarded to
employees it represents. In Case 1-CD-332, Laborers
alleges that area practice and economy favor an
award to Laborers. Finally, in Cases 1-CD-330 and
I-CD-332, Laborers contends that the respective
subcontractors made their assignments because of
coercion by Carpenters and therefore the Board
should not affirm the awards.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with the determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to
believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been
violated.
Subsequent to the hearing in Case 1-CD-322 AGC
filed a motion to amend the charge and other formal
documents. In its charge in this case, AGC named as
charged parties Carpenters' Local 67 and Carpenters'
District Council. In its motion, AGC moves to
change the name of charged parties to "United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local 33 and Boston and Vicinity Carpenters
District Council." Thereafter, Carpenters' Local 33
filed objections to AGC's motion. Since Carpenters'
Local 33 did not participate in the hearing, we
conclude that it would be inappropriate to make it a
party to this case at this time. Accordingly, we will
deny the motion to amend.
Furthermore, we conclude, in Case 1-CD-322, that
the record before us does not establish reasonable
cause to believe that either Carpenters' Local 67 or
Carpenters' District Council violated Section
8(b)(4)(D). We note that Fritter's testimony regard-
ing statements allegedly made by Fletcher, on behalf
of the Carpenters' District Council, is too ambiguous
to support a finding of reasonable cause. Therefore,
in Case 1-CD-322, we shall quash the notice of
hearing.
In Case 1-CD-323, the record indicates that
Carpenters' Local 67 and Carpenters' District Coun-
cil demanded the work and that, after an assignment
was made to Laborers Local 223, the carpenters went
on strike on or about September 27, 1972.
Contrary to the contentions of Carpenters' Local
15 As indicated, Carpenters' Local 67 defends in this case on the ground
that it struck Volpe to compel arbitration of its work assignment dispute in
accordance with a contract between it and Volpe. effective by its terms from
June 16, 1972. to June 15, 1973, which provides for arbitration of work
assignment disputes ancing under the contract. Volpe claims that the
contract was not effective during the strike because it had not yet been
67 and Carpenters' District Council, in the circum-
stances of this case, we are not satisfied that all
parties have agreed to be bound by a voluntary
private settlement or that the carpenters' strike was
merely to compel arbitration. The Board has de-
clined to find that arbitration proceedings not
involving all parties to the dispute constitute an
adequate method of adjustment of the dispute within
the meaning of Section 10(k). Laborers Local 1184,
Southern California District Council of Laborers
(Robertson Pipeline Constructors), 192 NLRB 1078. In
this case there are two contracts, one between Volpe
and the Carpenters and one between Volpe and the
Laborers. Though each contract may have an
arbitration provision, it does not necessarily follow
that all parties have agreed to be bound by a single
tripartite arbitration proceeding or that a court, as in
the case cited by the Carpenters, will necessarily
order a tripartite arbitration proceeding. Therefore,
we find no private settlement means sufficient to
preclude us from proceeding to a determination of
the instant dispute.
Further, in these circumstances, we cannot accept
Carpenters contention that the strike was merely to
compel arbitration. Again, a bipartite arbitration
between Volpe and the Carpenters would not
necessarily have settled the dispute. Also, since both
contracts apparently contain similar work assign-
ments to the respective Unions, it is even clearer that
a bipartite arbitration would not settle this dispute.
Rather, the more direct effect of the Carpenters
strike was to pressure Volpe to reassign the work in
dispute to Carpenters' Local 67.
Accordingly, based on the record before us,
Members Fanning and Kennedy find that there is
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that the dispute
is properly before the Board for determination. 15
In Case 1-CD-328, the record establishes that the
carpenters' shop steward threatened to pull the men
off the job unless the work was reassigned to
Carpenters' Local 67. Thereafter, the shop steward
rejected an offer of a composite crew and a strike
ensued. We reject Carpenters' Local 67's contention
that it was not responsible for the work stoppage.
Carpenters' Local 67 alleges that the shop steward
did not have the authority to call the men off the job.
Nonetheless , it is clear that Joseph Lazo, superin-
tendent of Franchi, negotiated with the shop steward
and that the shop steward had apparent authority to
speak for the men. Accordingly, we conclude that
approved by the Construction Industry Stabilization Committee Member
Penello finds that this issue which bears upon whether Carpenters ' Local 67
was seeking enforcement of a contract with Volpe herein was not
adequately litigated at the hearing in this nonadversary proceeding and he
would remand Case I- CD-323 for a more complete record on which to base
a determination
CARPENTERS, LOCAL 67 293
Respondent cannot avoid responsibility of its author-
ized shop steward. International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 640 (Brown Wholesale
Electrical Company), 190 NLRB 456. The shop
steward was an agent of Carpenters' Local 67 and we
therefore find reasonable cause to conclude that
there has been a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D).
In Case 1-CD-330, the record establishes that Lou
Manderini, business agent for Laborers' Local 22,
demanded the assignment of unloading dry wall.
After reaching no agreement regarding the dispute,
Laborers' Local 22 engaged in a 1-day work
stoppage. We thus find reasonable cause to believe a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that
the dispute is properly before the Board for determi-
nation.
Finally, in Case 1-CD-332, the record reveals that
George Emerson, president and agent of Laborers'
Local 429, threatened to picket the jobsite if laborers
did not unload the cabinets as part of a composite
crew. Further, when a truckload of cabinets arrived
at the jobsite, laborers blocked the truck from
backing onto the site for unloading. We are therefore
satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that
the dispute is properly before the Board for determi-
nation.
E. Merits of the Disputes
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work
after giving due consideration to the various relevant
factors.
The following factors are relevant in making a
determination of the disputes before us:
1. Cases I-CD-323 and 1-CD-328
a. Collective-bargaining agreements
AGC has contracts with both the Laborers and the
Carpenters. However, the contracts contain similar
jurisdictional assignment language, and AGC admits
there is an overlap in the work assignment language.
Under these circumstances, we are not satisfied that
either the contractual agreement of the Laborers or
the Carpenters is entitled to controlling weight for
the purposes of our determination. 16
b. Employer practice
Representatives of Volpe and Franchi state that
their practice has generally been to assign the
unloading of kitchen cabinets to laborers. Carpen-
ters, citing a recent arbitration decision to support its
position, argues that cabinets wrapped in corrugated
paper have been traditionally unloaded by carpen-
ters. Nonetheless, as general contractors, Volpe and
Franchi have usually attempted to assign the work to
their regular employees; i.e., laborers.
c. Employee skills and efficiency of operation
In these cases, the record indicates that both
groups of employees possess the requisite skills to
perform the work in dispute.
However, Volpe and Franchi have laborers on their
payroll at most times and it is more economical and
convenient to have cabinets unloaded by the regular
employees (i.e., laborers). After unloading a truck-
load of cabinets, laborers can return to their other
work. Volpe and Franchi, as general contractors, do
not have sufficient work-other than the unloading
of cabinets-to justify having full-time carpenters on
the payroll.
2. Case 1-CD-330
a. Collective-bargaining agreement
Clarence Levesque testified that he has a contract
with the Carpenters. The record also indicates that
Levesque has a contract with the Laborers. However,
on the record before us, we find that neither contract
makes a valid award of the work in dispute.
b. Employer practice
In the past Levesque has used both carpenters and
laborers to unload dry wall. However, as a specialty
contractor, Levesque has carpenters on its payroll as
steady employees. Accordingly, whenever possible,
Levesque has tried to use carpenters to unload dry
wall.
c. Employee skills and efficiency of operation
According to Clarence Levesque , laborers are not
good at unloading dry wall . He states that laborers
cut the binding tape and handle each sheet , thereby
increasing breakage . The carpenters, according to
Levesque, are more skillful at doing this work.
Further , Levesque argues that it is more economi-
cal to use its regular employees (i.e., carpenters) to
perform the disputed work . Levesque , stating it has
little other work for laborers , argues that it would be
too expensive to hire laborers for the one task alone.
16 Our decision herein should not be construed as reflecting upon the
ments of Laborers' or Carpenters' contractual claims vis-a-vis Volpe or
Franchi.
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Case 1-CD-332
a. Collective-bargaining agreement
The record indicates that Spalt has a contract with
the Carpenters. However, on the record before us, we
find no valid award of the work in dispute.
b. Employer practice
Spalt , in the past , has preferred to use carpenters
for the work, but it has had occasion to use both
carpenters and laborers to unload kitchen cabinets.
c. Employee skills and efficiency of operation
The record indicates that both laborers and
carpenters possess the skill to unload cabinets.
However, as a specialty contractor, Spalt has little
work for laborers and generally does not hire them.
Accordingly , Spalt finds it more economical and
efficient to use its regular employees (i.e., carpenters)
to unload the cabinets.
Conclusions
In Cases l-CD-323 and 1-CD-328, having consid-
ered all pertinent factors present herein , we conclude
respectively that employees represented by Laborers'
Local 223 and Laborers' Local 22 are entitled to
perform the work in dispute . This assignment is
consistent with the initial assignments, the Employ-
ers' preferred practices , and efficiency of operation.
In Case 1 -CD-330. having considered all pertinent
factors present herein, we conclude that employees
who are represented by Carpenters ' Local 218 are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. This
assignment is consistent with the initial assignment,
the Employer's preferred practice, and efficiency of
operation . Further, we find no evidence that the
Employer's initial assignment was a result of unlaw-
ful coercion by the Carpenters.
In Case 1 -CD-332, having considered all pertinent
factors present herein , we conclude that employees
of Carpenters ' Local 49 are entitled to perform the
work in dispute . This assignment is consistent with
the initial assignment , the Employer's preferred
practice , and efficiency of operation . Again, contrary
to the Laborers' contentions , we find no evidence
that the Employer's initial assignment was a result of
unlawful coercion by the Carpenters.
In making the above determination, we are
awarding the work in question to employees repre-
sented by the respective Locals, but not to those
Unions or their members. These determinations are
limited to particular controversies giving rise to these
disputes.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
makes the following determination of Disputes:
A. Case I-CD-323
1. Employees represented by Laborers ' Interna-
tional Union of North America , AFL-CIO, Local
223, are entitled to perform the work of unloading
cabinets at the Church Street Project in Boston,
Massachusetts.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America , AFL-CIO, Local 67 and Boston and
Vicinity District Council are not and have not been
entitled , by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act , to force or require the Employer to assign
the above work to employees it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Disputes , United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO,
Local 67 and Boston and Vicinity District Council
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring Volpe Construction Co., Inc ., by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act , to assign
the work in dispute to its members or employees
which it represents rather than to employees of Volpe
Construction Co., Inc ., represented by Laborers'
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
Local223.
B. Case I-CD-328
1. Employees represented by Laborers ' Interna-
tional Union of North America , AFL-CIO, Local
22, are entitled to perform the work of unloading
cabinets at the Hotel Somerset project in Boston,
Massachusetts.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America , Local 67 , is not and has not been
entitled , by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act , to force or require the Employer to assign
the above work to employees it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Disputes, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 67, shall
notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing,
whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring Franchi Construction Co., Inc., by means
proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act , to assign
the work in dispute to its members or employees
which it represents rather than to employees of
Franchi Construction Co., Inc ., represented by
Laborers ' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local 22.
CARPENTERS, LOCAL 67 295
C. Case 1-CD-330
1. Employees represented by United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
Local 218, are entitled to perform the work of
unloading dry wall at the Turnkey project at 640
Salem Street , Malden , Massachusetts.
2. Laborers' International Union of North Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Local 22. is not and has not been
entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign
the above work to employees it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Laborers' Interna-
tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local
22, shall noti fy the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing , whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring C. Levesque Co., by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in
dispute to its members or employees which it
represents rather than to employees of C. Levesque
Co. represented by United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, Local 218.
D. Case 1-CD-332
1. Employees represented by United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
Local 49, are entitled to perform the work of
unloading cabinets at Merrimac Plaza project in
Lowell, Massachusetts.
2. Laborers' International Union of North Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Local 429, is not and has not been
entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign
the above work to employees it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Disputes , Laborers' Interna-
tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local
429, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 1,
in writing , whether or not it will refrain from forcing
or requiring Spalt Associates , by means proscribed
by Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act , to assign the work
in dispute to its members or employees which it
represents rather than to employees of Spalt Associ-
ates represented by United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, Local 49.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing in
this proceeding be, and it hereby is, quashed insofar
as it concerns Case 1 -CD-322.