Carpenters Pacific Northwest Regional Council (Brand Energy Services)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 274 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
355 NLRB No. 45
274
Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters
and Brand Energy Services, LLC and Laborers
International Union. Case 19–CD–499
June 11, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND PEARCE
This is a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under Sec-
tion 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
Brand Energy Services, LLC (the Employer or Brand),
filed a charge on March 2, 2009, alleging that the Pacific
Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters (Regional
Carpenters) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by
engaging in proscribed activity with an object of forcing
the Employer to assign certain work to employees it
represents rather than to employees represented by La-
borers International Union (LIUNA). A hearing was
held on May 4–5, 2009, before Hearing Officer Clinton
Newman.1 Thereafter, LIUNA, Regional Carpenters and
Brand filed briefs, the Building and Construction Trades
Department (BCTD) and the North American Contrac-
tors Association (NACA) filed a brief as amici curiae in
support of LIUNA, and Regional Carpenters filed an
answering brief.2
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. On the entire re-
cord, we make the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The parties stipulated that the Employer is a Delaware
corporation engaged as a contractor in the construction
industry in the business of building scaffolding. The
Employer has a facility in Longview, Washington, from
which it has purchased and received more than $50,000
in goods and services from out-of-state sources during
the 12-month period prior to the hearing. The parties
also stipulated that, during the same period, the Em-
ployer provided services to customers located outside the
state of Washington exceeding $50,000 in value. The
parties further stipulated, and we find, that the Employer
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Regional Carpenters and

1 Prior to the hearing, LIUNA filed two motions, both of which
sought to dismiss the unfair labor practice charge and quash the notice
of hearing. The Regional Director summarily denied each motion.
2 The amici curiae’s motion for leave to file brief is hereby granted.
Additionally, Regional Carpenters’ motion to correct transcript is
granted.
LIUNA are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background
This case concerns a dispute over certain scaffold-
tending work at the REC Silicon Plant expansion project
(REC Project) in Moses Lake, Washington. Fluor Con-
structors International, Inc. (Fluor) is the general contrac-
tor on the REC Project. Fluor is signatory to the Na-
tional Construction Agreement (NCA), a project labor
agreement between the NACA and the BCTD that is
available for application to jobsites on a project-by-
project basis.
The NCA provides that the employer will subcontract
work on the particular project only to firms that are party
to the NCA. It also provides that any contractor or sub-
contractor working on the project shall become signatory
to the NCA and perform all work under its terms. The
NCA includes a provision on jurisdictional disputes.
Article 15, “Craft Jurisdiction,” states:

All signatory Employers to this project agree to assign
work and be bound to the terms and conditions of the
Plan for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the
Construction Industry. All jurisdictional disputes be-
tween or among the parties to this agreement will be
settled in accordance with the procedural rules and
regulations of the Plan.

Fluor applied for and was granted approval by the BCTD in
2006 to use the NCA on the REC Project.
LIUNA also is signatory to the NCA. Regional Car-
penters is not a signatory, but its parent, the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters (UBC), is signatory to the
NCA. According to its bylaws, Regional Carpenters was
formed through the affiliation of UBC locals in the states
of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
The parties stipulated that Regional Carpenters is “an
intermediate body under the Labor Management Report-
ing and Disclosure Act.”3
In 2008, Brand entered into a collective-bargaining
agreement with Regional Carpenters covering the States
of Washington and Oregon as well as northern Idaho.
The agreement, entitled, “Scaffolding and Shoring

3 Under the United Brotherhood of Carpenter’s organizational struc-
ture, which was reconfigured in 1996, virtually all representational
functions are performed by regional councils rather than local unions.
Local unions can employ only clerical employees. All representatives
and organizers are employees of regional councils. Regional Carpen-
ters bylaws and trade rules, sec. 3; see also Harrington v. Chao, 280
F.3d 50, 53–54 (1st Cir. 2002), on remand 286 F. Supp.2d 80 (D. Mass.
2003), revd. 372 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2004).
CARPENTERS PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL (BRAND ENERGY SERVICES) 275
Agreement,” required that Brand exclusively use em-
ployees represented by Regional Carpenters for building
scaffolding. The Scaffolding and Shoring Agreement’s
jurisdictional dispute provision stated as follows:

Jurisdictional disputes that cannot be resolved at the lo-
cal level shall be referred to the International Unions
involved for a determination. Any determination made
pursuant to this provision shall be final and binding on
the disputing unions and the involved Employer on the
relevant project only.

Unlike the NCA, the Scaffolding and Shoring Agreement
did not incorporate the plan for settlement of jurisdictional
disputes in the construction industry (the Plan). It did, how-
ever, contain the following “inferiority clause”:

In the event the Employer enters into project labor
agreements or site agreements subsequent to the date of
execution of this Agreement, the provisions of which
conflict with the terms of this Agreement, the terms of
the applicable project labor agreement or site agree-
ment shall take precedence over this Agreement.

Regional Carpenters is also party to an arrangement
that allows its represented employees to work on con-
struction projects covered by BCTD agreements even
though its parent union, the UBC, had disaffiliated from
the BCTD. On July 26, 2007, Regional Carpenters
signed a document entitled “Participation Agreement
between the Building and Construction Trades Depart-
ment, AFL–CIO, Washington State Building & Con-
struction Trades Council, AFL–CIO, and Pacific North-
west Regional Council of Carpenters.” The participation
agreement stated that it constituted “an application by the
Local Union, for a Department Participation Charter for
the purposes of affiliating with the Washington State
Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL–CIO.”4
The participation agreement included the following pro-
vision concerning jurisdictional disputes:

The traditional jurisdictional dispute resolution proce-
dures under the Department’s Constitution shall apply
to jurisdictional disputes among and between the affili-
ates of the Department, their affiliated subordinate bod-
ies and the Local Union and its subordinate bodies.

4 The Agreement incorporated the Participation Charter that the
BCTD simultaneously granted to Regional Carpenters. The Charter
authorized “the above-named local union” to affiliate with the Wash-
ington State Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL–CIO. At
the hearing, the parties used the term “Solidarity Charter” to refer to
both the Participation Agreement and the Participation Charter.
The jurisdictional dispute resolution procedure provided
under article X of the BCTD’s constitution is the Plan.
B. Instant Dispute
Fluor awarded the scaffolding work on phase 4.0 of
the project to Brand. Brand began work on phase 4.0 in
2008, using employees represented by Regional Carpen-
ters.5 On February 24, 2009,6 Regional Carpenters’ rep-
resentative, Doug Tweedy, sent a letter to Brand’s attor-
ney, Steven Atkinson. The letter stated that “the Labor-
ers Union [is] demanding that Brand assign certain Car-
penters work to the Laborers” at the REC Project and
that “if Brand attempts to reassign any work performed
by Carpenters, we will strike and picket your client’s
projects to protect our work.” On March 2, Brand filed
the instant unfair labor practice charge.
On about March 9, LIUNA filed a challenge with the
plan concerning Brand’s assignment of the work to em-
ployees represented by Regional Carpenters. On March
11, Brand signed a letter of assent covering Phase 4.0
subcontracting work on the REC Project, thereby binding
itself to the NCA.7 Brand signed the letter of assent be-
cause Fluor instructed it to do so, according to Nigel Ly-
ons, Brand’s northwest division general manager.
Arbitrator Pierson conducted a hearing on LIUNA’s
challenge under the Plan on March 20. In his March 23
decision, the arbitrator awarded the work to employees
represented by LIUNA, finding that Regional Carpenters
was bound to the Plan by virtue of the UBC’s ratification
of the NCA, and further finding that, pursuant to the
practice in the industry, Brand’s assignment of the work
to employees represented by Regional Carpenters was
improper and that the work should be assigned to em-
ployees represented by LIUNA.
On April 14, LIUNA submitted a request to the NCA
Joint Labor Management Administrative Committee
(JAC)8 to interpret certain language in the NCA regard-
ing the meaning of the provision that “local unions” were
bound to the terms of the NCA. The NCA empowers the
JAC “to resolve any dispute over the intent of this

5 A company called Brand Scaffold Rental and Erection, headquar-
tered in California, performed the scaffolding work in the prior expan-
sion phase, phase 3.0, also using employees represented by Regional
Carpenters. Brand Scaffold Rental and Erection then decided to “open
an operation in Longview, Washington, and move into the state of
Washington as Brand Energy Services,” according to Nigel Lyons,
Brand’s northwest division general manager. The precise legal relation-
ship between Brand Energy Services and Brand Scaffold Rental and
Erection was not established in the record.
6 All subsequent dates are in 2009, unless otherwise indicated.
7 The parties stipulated that Brand was bound to the NCA. Previ-
ously, on May 22, 2007, Brand Scaffold Rental and Erection had signed
a letter of assent covering Phase 3.0 of the Project.
8 The JAC is composed of representatives of six national construc-
tion contractors and six construction unions.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 276
agreement.”9 In response to LIUNA’s request, the JAC
issued a written interpretation on April 23, unanimously
finding:

[O]nce the NCA is approved by the [BCTD] for a spe-
cific project, the Agreement binds not only the signa-
tory International Union(s) and their respective local
unions but also any and all other subordinate or inter-
mediate bodies/organizations of the signatory Interna-
tional Union(s) regardless of the nomenclature used by
said International Union(s).

The JAC panel that rendered this interpretation was com-
posed of an equal number of employer and union represen-
tatives and did not include any of the parties to the case.
C. Work in Dispute
The parties stipulated that the work in dispute consists
of “scaffold tending, stocking, and tending carpenters in
the erection of scaffolding exceeding 14 feet in height at
the REC Moses Lake Expansion Project, Moses Lake,
Washington.”
D. Contentions of the Parties
LIUNA contends—along with amici BCTD and
NACA—that the notice of hearing should be quashed
because the parties are bound by the plan, an agreed-
upon method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
LIUNA and the amici further contend that Brand is not
subject to two competing jurisdictional dispute proce-
dures, because the NCA’s “supremacy clause” and the
Scaffolding and Shoring Agreement’s “inferiority
clause” establish that the NCA takes precedence over the
Scaffolding and Shoring Agreement. LIUNA addition-
ally contends that Regional Carpenters is bound to the
plan because it agreed to the participation agreement and
because the Scaffolding and Shoring Agreement provides
an “inferiority clause” in favor of the NCA.
Regional Carpenters urges the Board not to quash the
notice of hearing, contending that: (1) the plain language
of the NCA binds only the UBC and the “local affili-
ates,” and thus not Regional Carpenters; (2) the plain
language of the Participation Agreement binds only “lo-
cal unions”; (3) Brand is bound to competing dispute
mechanisms because it is signatory to both the Scaffold-
ing and Shoring Agreement and the NCA; (4) there was
no “actual adjustment” of the dispute; and (5) the arbitra-
tion award is not entitled to weight under Board law.
In agreement with Regional Carpenters, Brand con-
tends that Regional Carpenters is not bound to the NCA
or to the plan and that Brand faces two potentially com-
peting dispute mechanisms.

9 NCA, sec. 4–3.
E. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with determining a dis-
pute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, there must be
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
been violated. This standard requires finding that there is
reasonable cause to believe that: (1) there are competing
claims for the disputed work among rival groups of em-
ployees;10 (2) a party has used proscribed means to en-
force its claim to the work in dispute;11 and (3) the par-
ties have not agreed to a method for the voluntary ad-
justment of the dispute.12 On this record, we find that
this standard has not been met. Specifically, we find, in
agreement with LIUNA and amici BCTD and NACA,
that all parties are bound to the Plan, which constitutes
an agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of
the dispute.13
It is undisputed that Brand and LIUNA are parties to
the NCA and, therefore, are bound to the plan. We find
that Regional Carpenters also is bound to the Plan, both
because it is a party to the NCA and also because it is
signatory to a participation agreement with the BCTD
and the Washington State Building and Construction
Trades Council. As indicated above, both of these
agreements require that jurisdictional disputes be re-
solved through use of the plan.
1. Regional Carpenters is bound by the NCA
As set forth in its preamble, the NCA applies to the na-
tional and international unions that sign it “and those local
unions affiliated with such National and International Un-
ions who accept the terms of this Agreement by virtue of
accepting the benefits of the Agreement on specific pro-
jects covered by the Agreement and/or by referring em-
ployees to work on such projects.” Regional Carpenters
meets the definition of entities to which the NCA applies.
Its parent union, the UBC, is a signatory to the NCA. Ad-
ditionally, Regional Carpenters accepted the benefits of

10 Carpenters Local 275 (Lymo Construction Co.), 334 NLRB 422,
423 (2001).
11 See, e.g., Electrical Workers Local 3 (Slattery Skanska, Inc.), 342
NLRB 173, 174 (2004).
12 Operating Engineers Local 150 (R&D Thiel), 345 NLRB 1137,
1139 (2005).
13 Operating Engineers Local 139 (Allied Construction), 293 NLRB
604, 605–606 (1989) (Plan found to be agreed-upon method for the
voluntary adjustment of dispute). Although Regional Carpenters con-
tends that there was no “actual adjustment” of the dispute, it is not
necessary for there to be an actual adjustment. Rather, Sec. 10(k) re-
quires only a showing that there exists a method of voluntary adjust-
ment of the dispute. Plumbers Local 447 (Capitol Air Conditioning),
224 NLRB 985, 988–989 (1976).
In view of our finding that the standard has not been met because all
parties are bound to an agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjust-
ment of the dispute, we need not address the other elements of the
standard.
CARPENTERS PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL (BRAND ENERGY SERVICES) 277
the NCA on the REC Project and referred employees to
work on it. Brand General Manager Lyons testified that
Brand obtained additional carpenters when needed on the
REC Project by requesting Regional Carpenters to dis-
patch them. Further, employees represented by Regional
Carpenters were employed by two other contractors on the
REC Project—Garco Construction and Harder Mechani-
cal—that made payments to Regional Carpenters’ benefit
funds on their behalf. Representatives of both companies
testified that the work they performed on the REC Project
was done under the NCA. Thus, Regional Carpenters
accepted the benefits of the NCA through the benefit fund
contributions generated by its represented employees
working on that project.
We further find that Regional Carpenters is encom-
passed within the term “local unions” as used in the
above-quoted NCA preamble language. The NCA, like
all project labor agreements, is designed to standardize
and make uniform the terms and conditions under which
entire projects will be carried out. The NCA itself, in
“Article 1, Purpose,” states that “[i]t is also the intent of
the parties to set out standard working conditions for the
efficient prosecution of said construction work.” This
purpose was explicated by the BCTD’s director of field
services, William Koczorowski, who is administrator of
the NCA and other national agreements and a member of
the Steamfitters Union, which is not involved in this dis-
pute. He testified as follows:

A National Agreement standardizes the working condi-
tions for all the crafts that are working on the project,
such as starting times, quitting times, no-strike provi-
sions. It makes the process rather than a National con-
tract[or] . . . having to deal with 15 Local Unions, he
deals under this one agreement and it standardizes all
their collective bargaining agreements into this.

Consequently, given that uniformity of working conditions
is the goal of project labor agreements, it is highly implausi-
ble that the NCA’s drafters and signatories intended that its
provisions would apply to international unions and their
local affiliates on a project but not to intermediate union
entities working on the same project. Such patchwork cov-
erage would permit nonuniform project working conditions
and, thus, defeat the purpose of such agreements.14 Indeed,
Koczorowski further testified:

14 See Local 292, Sheet Metal Workers (Gallagher-Kaiser Corp.),
264 NLRB 424, 429–430 (1982) (project agreement, by its very nature,
was applicable to entire project; contention that it bound only parties
who signed the same contract rejected, because such an interpretation
would result in the agreement governing only a small portion of the
project work).
I’ve been administrating this agreement since 1996,
and . . . [i]t’s always been understood that a Local Un-
ion, whatever you want to call them, a lodge, a District
Council are bound by the same terms and conditions by
virtue of the General President’s signature.

In addition, the JAC, in its written interpretation, found
unanimously that the NCA “binds not only the signatory
International Union(s) and their respective local unions
but also any and all other subordinate or intermediate
bodies/organizations of the signatory International Un-
ion(s) regardless of the nomenclature used by said Inter-
national Union(s).” The JAC is the body authorized by
the NCA itself to resolve disputes over the NCA’s intent.
We find no basis for disregarding the JAC’s instructive
ruling.
Further, the NCA is not silent about regional entities.
Rather, in Section 3-3, it provides that the NCA super-
sedes “regional/area” agreements, as well as others,
unless specifically incorporated in the NCA. The NCA,
therefore, must be presumed to cover and apply to re-
gional union entities that make such agreements.
Blake Construction Co. v. Laborers International Un-
ion of North America, 511 F.2d 324 (D.C. Cir. 1975),
lends support to finding that a project labor agreement
applies to all union entities engaged in the covered pro-
ject. In that case, the court found that an earlier version
of the NCA applied to Laborers’ District Council of
Washington, D.C. and Vicinity and Local Union 74, even
though the council and local, while named in the agree-
ment, were not signatories to the agreement. The court
stated:

It would be anomalous to permit local units to enjoy the
benefits of bargaining agreements and yet to rid them-
selves of the duties concomitantly imposed simply be-
cause the agreements are signed only by the parent un-
ions.
. . .
[T]he contract is obviously intended to cover relation-
ships other than those between its signers. And it is
manifestly unreasonable to assume that Blake or any
other employer contemplated a collective-bargaining
agreement that did not mutually obligate parties with
whom Blake would be dealing directly to abide by its
terms.15

Accordingly, we agree with the JAC that, in using the
term “local unions,” the NCA intended to cover all union
entities subordinate to national and international unions,

15 511 F.2d at 329, 330 (footnotes omitted).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 278
rather than including some subordinate bodies and ex-
cluding others.
Regional Carpenters contends that the UBC could not
bind it to the NCA because the UBC is not its agent.
However, Regional Carpenters’ Assistant Executive Sec-
retary Cass Prindle testified that the UBC is a superior
body to Regional Carpenters. This fact is reflected in
Regional Carpenters’ bylaws, as they recognize the supe-
rior authority of the UBC to sign agreements. The by-
laws provide that Regional Carpenters “shall have the
exclusive power and authority to negotiate, ratify, and
execute Collective Bargaining Agreements for and on
behalf of its affiliated Local Unions except to the extent
the International Union exercises its jurisdiction or au-
thority.”16 Accordingly, Regional Carpenters’ argument
that the UBC could not bind it to the NCA lacks merit.17
Regional Carpenters’ contention that finding it bound
to the NCA would subject Brand to two potentially con-
flicting jurisdictional dispute resolution procedures also
lacks merit. As noted above, the NCA supersedes re-
gional and other agreements that are not specifically in-
corporated in the NCA. Additionally, the Scaffolding
and Shoring Agreement, through its inferiority clause,
specifically yields to conflicting project labor agree-
ments. This case differs, then, from those that Regional
Carpenters cites in which the Board found that there was
no determinative private dispute resolution mechanism.18
In each of those cases, an employer was bound to two
contracts, which provided varying methods for resolving
jurisdictional disputes. In the present case, the NCA and
the Scaffolding and Shoring Agreement do not conflict
but, rather, are in agreement that the NCA’s provisions
prevail. Accordingly, Brand could not be subject to the
jurisdictional dispute resolution procedures of both the
NCA and the Scaffolding and Shoring Agreement.

16 Regional Carpenters bylaws and trade rules, sec. 18 (emphasis
added).
17 In support of its contention, Regional Carpenters relies on Whisper
Soft Mills, Inc. v. NLRB, 754 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir. 1984). That decision,
however, unlike the present case, did not concern whether an interna-
tional union acted as the agent of its subordinate regional council.
Rather, that case presented the opposite question: whether the regional
council acted as an agent of its parent international union. There, as
only the international was certified as the bargaining representative of
the unit, the court found that the employer had no duty to bargain with
the regional council. Likewise, in Shimman v. Frank, 625 F.2d 80, 97
(6th Cir. 1980), the court found an international union not liable for the
acts of its local, stating “[t]he acts of the local…cannot automatically
be imputed to the International.” Other agency cases that Regional
Carpenters cited are similarly nondispositive.
18 Operating Engineers Local 14–14B (Island Lathing), 325 NLRB
370 (1998); Operating Engineers Local 318 (Kenneth E. Foeste Ma-
sonry), 322 NLRB 709 (1996); Operating Engineers Local 150 (Austin
Co.), 296 NLRB 938 (1989).
2. Regional Carpenters is bound by the
participation agreement
Even apart from the NCA, Regional Carpenters is
bound independently to the plan by having entered into
the participation agreement.19 As noted above, the par-
ticipation agreement requires that the Plan be used to
resolve jurisdictional disputes “between the affiliates of
the Department, their affiliated subordinate bodies and
the Local Union and its subordinate bodies.”
Although Regional Carpenters signed the participation
agreement, it contends that only its member locals, and
not Regional Carpenters itself, are bound by the agree-
ment because the “parties” provision in the agreement
identifies it as the “Pacific Northwest Regional Council
of Carpenters on behalf of its Washington State Locals
(‘Local Union’),” and the agreement refers several times
to “the Local Union.” We find this argument unpersua-
sive. Regional Carpenters is composed of the UBC lo-
cals of five states, while the participation agreement is an
agreement with only the Washington State Building and
Construction Trades Council. Consequently, the phrase
“on behalf of its Washington State Locals” more likely
signifies that the agreement extends only to Regional
Carpenters’ locals within the State of Washington, rather
than that Regional Carpenters itself is not a party to the
agreement.
Additionally, the agreement is entitled “Participation
Agreement between the Building and Construction
Trades Department, AFL–CIO, Washington State Build-
ing & Construction Trades Council, AFL–CIO, and Pa-
cific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters” without
any additional “on behalf of locals” language. Similarly,
the participation charter, which is incorporated in the
participation agreement, provides, without mention of
local unions, that the “Pacific Northwest Regional Coun-
cil of Carpenters shall have such rights and privileges as
established by the Participation Agreement.”
Although the participation agreement refers several
times to “the Local Union,” BCTD Field Services Direc-
tor Koczorowski testified that the participation agree-
ment is a boilerplate document used mainly for local
unions. The term “Local Union” within the document
undoubtedly is part of the boilerplate language. In the
participation agreement signed by Regional Carpenters,
it is apparent from the context that the term “Local Un-
ion” refers to Regional Carpenters. For example, the
participation agreement provides that the “Local Un-
ion’s” right to participate in the affairs of the Washington

19 Because Regional Carpenters signed the participation agreement,
there is no issue regarding the UBC acting as Regional Carpenters’
agent with respect to the participation agreement.
CARPENTERS PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL (BRAND ENERGY SERVICES) 279
State Building and Construction Trades Council is “con-
tingent on the Local Union paying to the Washington
State Building and Construction Trades Council a fee”
equivalent to the per capita tax. Regional Carpenters’
Assistant Executive Secretary Prindle acknowledged that
Regional Carpenters pays affiliation fees to the Washing-
ton State Building and Construction Trades Council.
Indeed, Regional Carpenters is the “largest per capita
paying group” in the Washington State Building and
Construction Trades Council, according to the uncontro-
verted testimony of Mark Reavis.20 Regional Carpenters
could not become affiliated with and pay fees to the
Washington State Building and Construction Trades
Council were it not for the participation agreement and
participation charter, according to Reavis’ and Koc-
zorowski’s uncontroverted testimony.
We therefore find that, in signing the participation
agreement, Regional Carpenters was not merely acting as
an agent for its locals, but rather obtained its own rights

20 Reavis, a local LIUNA officer, is also a delegate to the Washing-
ton State Building and Construction Trades Council and a state AFL–
CIO vice president.
and incurred its own obligations under that agreement.
Accordingly, as a party to the participation agreement,
Regional Carpenters is bound to the Agreement’s re-
quirement that the plan be used to resolve jurisdictional
disputes.21
In sum, we find that Regional Carpenters is bound to
the plan both through the NCA and through the participa-
tion agreement and that LIUNA and Brand are indisputa-
bly bound to the Plan through the NCA. Accordingly,
because all parties are bound to submit jurisdictional
disputes to the plan, which constitutes an agreed-upon
method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute, we
shall quash the notice of hearing.
ORDER
The notice of hearing issued in this proceeding is
quashed.

21 Cf. Operating Engineers Local 139 (Allied Construction), 293
NLRB 604, 606 fn. 6 (1989) (where employer association was signa-
tory and named as a party to a contract, Board rejected association’s
contention that it was not bound by the contract because it negotiated
the contract only on behalf of an individual employer).