Dist. Lodge 123, Machinists

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 977 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

DIST. LODGE 123, MACHINISTS 977
District Lodge No. 123, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO'
and Local No. 16, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and Pacific
Crane & Rigging Company . Case 38-CD-13
October 24, 1967
was engaged in construction work in Illinois,
Florida, Arizona, and Texas, for which it made out-
of-State purchases of goods, materials, and supplies
valued in excess of $50,000.
We find that Pacific Crane is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , follow-
ing charges filed by Pacific Crane & Rigging Com-
pany, herein called Pacific Crane or the Employer,
against District Lodge No. 123, International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent. The
charge alleged that the Respondent threatened
Pacific Crane and others with the establishment of
a picket line for the purpose of coercing , forcing,
and or requiring the Employer to assign a portion of
certain work to members of the Respondent rather
than to members of Local No. 16, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO , herein called the Local Carpenters
Union . Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on
July 6 and 31 and August 1, 1967, before William
G. Stack , Hearing Officer . All parties participated
in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses,
to adduce evidence , and to orally argue their
respective contentions and positions.2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel.
The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case , the Board
makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Pacific Crane, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Paramount Pacific, Inc., with its principal office
and place of business located in Paramount,
California, is a corporation engaged in the installa-
tion and erection of machinery for various concerns
located throughout the United States. During the
12-month period prior to the hearing, Pacific Crane
As corrected at the heanng.
s The Officer-in-Charge of Subregion 38 designated this case as one in-
volving the national defense pursuant to Sec . 102.90 of the Rules and
Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , thus eliminating the
filing of briefs except upon application expeditiously made to the Board in
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Respondent and Local Carpenters Union are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Issue
The work in dispute is the erection and installa-
tion of a steam turbine and generator at the V. Y.
Dallman Power Station , Springfield , Illinois.
B. The Basic Facts
Pacific Crane was awarded a contract to erect
and install a new steam turbine and generator for
the city of Springfield , Illinois , at its new V. Y.
Dallman Power Station . This station is adjacent to
the city owned Lakeside Power Plant , which con-
sists of seven operating turbine generators. Em-
ployees of the Lakeside Power Plant , as well as
construction employees , ordinarily use the same
gate to enter the premises. The maintenance em-
ployees of the Lakeside Power Plant are currently
represented by Respondent . On or about August
14, 1966, prior to the award of the installation con-
tract for the Dallman Power Station , Respondent
advised the city of Springfield , that a composite
crew of machinists and millwrights should be as-
signed the erection and installation work, pursuant
to an agreement between the International Associa-
tion of Machinists and the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America. Under this
agreement , turbine installation and erection work
was to be performed by a composite crew of equal
numbers of machinists and millwrights under the
collective-bargaining agreements or working rules
of the millwrights . Thereafter, when Pacific Crane
obtained the installation contract from Springfield,
it became aware of Respondent 's request. Later in
September 1966, prior to the start of construction,
the shared assignment agreement expired.
When work began in May 1967 , Pacific Crane as-
Washington, D C., after the close of the hearing . Contrary to the parties'
stipulation at the hearing , the record fully supports the national defense
designation . Moreover, after the close of the heanng , the parties did not
make application to the Board requesting leave to file briefs.
167 NLRB No. 136
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signed the work in dispute to millwrights who were
represented by the Local Carpenters Union and
covered by a collective-bargaining contract in effect
between Pacific Crane and the Carpenters Interna-
tional Union. Accordingly, a crew composed solely
of nine millwrights and a millwright foreman com-
menced the work in dispute. On or about May 24,
1967, representatives of the Respondent met with
Pacific Crane's construction superintendent, Van
Winkle, and told him that if a composite crew was
not used on the disputed work a picket line would
be established outside the gate and that this would
mean "no power for the city of Springfield." About
the same time a similar threat was made by Respond-
ent representatives to the Lakeside Power Plant
superintendent, Wilcoxon. Pacific Crane filed the
charge on June 5, 1967. However, at all times
material herein, the Respondent has adhered to its
promise made at the hearing not to picket, strike, or
cause a work stoppage pending the Board's final
determination of dispute.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Respondent admits seeking and demanding,
through its representative, Carstens, assignment of
the work in dispute at a meeting with a representa-
tive of Pacific Crane, but contends that the Board
does not have jurisdiction in this matter, as the prin-
cipal party in this dispute is the city of Springfield,
and the situs of the dispute is city public property.3
In any event, it argues that the disputed work
should be performed by a composite crew of an
equal number of machinists and millwrights on the
basis of economy and quality of the machinists'
work, and the Employer and area practice.
Local Carpenters Union contends that the work
in dispute should be awarded to the millwrights on
the basis of industry and area practice, and the ac-
tual assignment of the work in dispute by Pacific
Crane to the millwrights pursuant to the Employer's
collective-bargaining agreement with the Carpen-
ters International Union. It also contends that
Machinists Unions have not bargained for em-
ployees erecting turbine generators, at least since
1954, and that Carpenters Unions have supplied
the only representation. It argues further that all
turbine generator erection has been performed
under terms and conditions of employment bar-
gained for by Carpenters Unions, which are also the
sole source of labor supply for such work.
Pacific Crane contends that the millwrights are
3 The Respondent filed a motion to dismiss , which was opposed by
Pacific Crane , alleging that the Board lacks jurisdiction in this matter, it
claims in this connection that the primary employer in this dispute is the
city of Springfield and that , as a political subdivision , Springfield is not an
"employer" within Secs . 2(2) and 8 (b)(4)(D) of the Act We find this con-
tention without merit The record shows that Pacific Crane , an independ-
ent contractor who hires all the employees who perform the disputed
work , is the "employer" within the purview of Sec. 8 (b)(4)(D) of the Act
Moreover, although the city of Springfield is not an "employer" within the
entitled to the work on the basis of the skill, relative
efficiency, economy, and quality of millwrights'
work, and also because of its contract with the Car-
penters International Union which it will not vio-
late.
IV. APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE
The charge herein alleges a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of the Act. The record shows, and the
Respondent concedes , that on or about May 24,
1967, its representative , Carstens , threatened to
picket the Dallman construction site and the exist-
ing Lakeside Power Plant in support of demands
that Pacific Crane reassign the disputed work to a
composite crew of an equal number of machinists
and millwrights . The record also shows , and the
Respondent does not deny, that a similar threat was
made by Carstens to the superintendent of the
Lakeside Power Plant.
We find that there is reasonable cause to believe
that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii )(D) has oc-
curred and that the dispute is properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the
Act.
V. MERITS OF THE DISPUTE
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to
make an affirmative award of the disputed work
after giving due consideration to various relevant
factors. The following factors are asserted in sup-
port of the claims of the parties herein:
A. Collective-Bargaining Agreements
Respondent has a collective- bargaining agree-
ment with the city of Springfield covering the main-
tenance employees of the Lakeside Power Plant,
who are not involved in this proceeding. It was not
contemplated that any of them should perform any
part of the work in dispute. This contact between
Respondent and the city does not cover new instal-
lation work, but only overhaul work on generators
in operation.
The Carpenters International Union has a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with . Pacific Crane,
which by its terms incorporates the local collective-
bargaining agreement entered into between the
Local Carpenters Union and the General Building
Contractors Association of Springfield. There
agreements with Pacific Crane cover the mill-
definition of Sec 2(2) of the Act, it is nevertheless a "person" engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Sec. 8 (b)(4) and in entitled to the protec-
tion of the Act New York Typographical Union No 6, ITU, AFL-CIO
(Gavrtn Press Corporation, dlbla Gavrin Business Forms Company,
Inc.), 141 NLRB 1209, fn. 2, Sheet Metal Workers International As-
sociation , Local Union No 299, AFL-CIO (S. M. Kisner and Sons), 131
NLRB 1196, fn 5, and Plumbers, Steamfitters, etc, Local 298 v County
ofDoor, 359 U.S. 354.
DIST. LODGE 123, MACHINISTS 979
wrights assigned to the disputed work. Pacific
Crane does not have a contract with the Respond-
ent or any other Machinists Union.
B. Other Agreements
On September 18, 1954, the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America and the Inter-
national Association of Machinists entered into an
agreement pertaining to the jurisdiction of certain
work, including the erection and installation of
steam turbines and generator units. This agreement
provided in part:
Section (a) The erection and installation of
steam ... turbines and generator units shall be
performed by a composite crew of equal num-
bers of Machinists and Millwrights. Work shall
be performed under the collective-bargaining
agreements or working rules of the Mill-
wrights.'
Section (b) Foreman on steam . turbines
and generator installations shall be Mill-
wrights.' ... Foreman shall not be counted in
the determination of a composite crew.
Except as provided for in the supplemental letters exchanged
between the presidents of the two International Unions.
In September 1966, prior to the assignment of the
disputed work, the agreement was formally ter-
minated. The record indicates that the agreement
was generally not followed even during its operative
period.
C. Employer, Area, and Industry Practice
During the past 4 years Pacific Crane has erected
and installed three turbine generators, none of
which was in the State of Illinois. On all these prior
jobs, Pacific Crane ordered its men, without speci-
fying crafts, directly from the local Millwrights
Union, which then sent both millwrights and
machinists to the jobsite. Both crafts worked under
the collective-bargaining agreement executed
between the Carpenters International Union and
Pacific Crane. However, the record establishes
that, with the exception of a turbine generator
erected at Meredosia, Illinois , in 1960 and two tur-
bine generators constructed at the Lakeside Power
Plant in 1961 and 1965, respectively, crews com-
posed solely of millwrights have been performing
the disputed work in the area. Even the few jobs
handled by composite crews were performed in ac-
cordance with wages, and terms and conditions of
employment set out in collective-bargaining agree-
ments executed between general contractors and
Carpenters or Millwrights Unions. The record also
establishes that, with rare exception, crews com-
posed solely of millwrights perform the disputed
work in the industry. Thus, the assignment here of
the disputed work to the millwrights accords with
the area and industry practice, and is not incon-
sistent with the Employer's practice of requesting
its men directly from the local Carpenters or Mill-
wrights Union.
D. Relative Skills and Efficiency of Operation
The Respondent contends that machinists are
more skilled and efficient than millwrights in per-
forming the disputed work, because machinists
work to closer tolerances with the use of precision
tools. It also contends that where composite crews
have been used the machinists were given the part
of the work requiring more precision. The Local
Carpenters Union contends, however, and, the
record supports its contention, that millwrights
skillfully work to as close a tolerance with precision
tools as do machinists in performing the disputed
work. Moreover, the carpenters have a training pro-
gram intended to develop special skills used by mill-
wrights in erecting and installing turbine generators.
The Board is satisfied from the entire record that
the machinists cannot claim superior skill and effi-
ciency with regard to the work in dispute. Pacific
Crane's assignment, therefore, was not inconsistent
with either the relative skills involved, or with effi-
ciency of operation.
E. Conclusions as to the Merits of the Dispute
As stated in the J. A. Jones case4 and in con-
formity with the Supreme Court's CBS 5 decision,
the Board makes its determination in 10(k) cases
upon consideration of all relevant factors.
Having considered all the pertinent factors, we
conclude that the millwrights represented by the
Local Carpenters Union are entitled to perform the
work in dispute. Millwrights are at least as skilled
in the performance of the work as machinists, and
Pacific Crane, which assigned them to the work,
has been satisfied with both the quality and the per-
formance of their work. Moreover, the instant as-
signment of the disputed work to millwrights is con-
sistent with the Carpenters International Union's
collective-bargaining agreement with Pacific Crane,
is consistent with area and industry practice, and is
not inconsistent with the past practice of the Em-
ployer. We conclude that the Employer 's assign-
ment of the disputed work to millwrights should not
be disturbed. We accordingly determine that mill-
wrights, rather than machinists, are entitled to the
work in dispute . In making this determination, we
are assigning the disputed work to the employees of
Pacific Crane who are represented by the Carpen-
ters Union, but not to that Union or its members.
4 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO
(J. A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402,1410-11.
5 N.L.R.B. v Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local
1212,1BEW (Columbia Broadcasting System), 364 U S. 573.
310-5410-70-63
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
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
hereby makes the following determination of
dispute.
1. Millwrights employed by Pacific Crane &
Rigging Company who are represented by Local
No. 16, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to per-
form the work of erecting and installing a steam tur-
bine and generator for the city of Springfield, Il-
linois , at its new V. Y. Dallman Power Station.
2. District Lodge No. 123, International As-
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, is not entitled , by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act, to force or require
Pacific Crane & Rigging Company to assign the
above work to machinists.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute , District Lodge No.
123, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO , shall notify the
Officer-in-Charge of Subregion 38, in writing,
whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or
requiring Pacific Crane & Rigging Company, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D ), to assign
the work in dispute to machinists rather than mill-
wrights.