Glass Workers Local No. 740

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 18, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 1137 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

GLASS WORKERS LOCAL NO 740
Glass Workers Local No. 740 of the International
Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-
CIO' and Twin City Glass Co. and Sheet Metal
Workers Local No. 150, Sheet Metal Workers In-
ternational Association, AFL-CIO. Case 19-CD
330
September 18, 1979
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a
charge filed by Twin City Glass Co., herein called the
Employer, alleging that Glass Workers Local No. 740
of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Al-
lied Trades, AFL-CIO, herein called the Glass Work-
ers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by en-
gaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of
forcing or requiring the Employer to assign certain
work to its members rather than to employees repre-
sented by Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 150, Sheet
Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Sheet Metal Workers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hear-
ing Officer William T. Grimm on June 8, 1979. All
parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. There-
after, the Employer, the Glass Workers, and Sheet
Metal Workers filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployer, a Washington corporation with its principal
place of business in Longview, Washington, is en-
gaged in the construction industry as a glass contrac-
tor. During the past calendar year, the Employer real-
ized gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and
purchased goods from outside the State of Washing-
i The name of this Union appears as amended at the hearing.
ton having a value in excess of $50,000. The parties
also stipulated, and we find, that the Frnplo\ er is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning ot Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. HE IABOR ()R(iANIZAIO()N INV()I.\I:I)
The parties stipulated, and we tind. that the Glass,
Workers and the Sheet Metal Workers are labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. IHE I)ISPtUI'
A. Background and Facts olf the DiVlute
Twin City Glass Co. is engaged in the construction
industry as a glass contractor in Longview. Washing-
ton. The Employer is a member of the Mt. Hood
Glass Management Association, a multiemployer
bargaining group comprised of a group of businesses
involved in the installation of glass and metal
throughout the State of Oregon and southwest Wash-
ington. Mt. Hood Glass Management Association
currently has a master labor agreement with the
Glass Workers which was entered into on July 20,
1976. The Employer has never had a labor agreement
with the Sheet Metal Workers.
The Employer was granted a contract to install a
particular type of aluminum facia known as Kawneer
Shadowform at the Vehicle Maintenance and Storage
Facility and Substation Maintenance Facility. Cow-
litz P.U.D.. in the Longview-Kelso area of Washing-
ton.
On or about March 6, 1979, the Employer assigned
the work in question to glassworkers and assigned
two workers to commence the installation of the
Kawneer Shadowform. By letter dated May 10. 1979,
a demand was made by the Sheet Metal Workers for
the work in dispute. By a telephone call on May 22,
1979, Ben Johnson, business representative of the
Glass Workers, stated to the Employer that, if the
work in dispute were assigned to sheet metal workers,
the Glass Workers would picket, or cause to be
picketed, the jobsite involved.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the installation of cap
and sill flashing and aluminum facia (Kawneer Sha-
dowform) at the Vehicle Maintenance and Storage
Facility and Substation Maintenance Facility, Cow-
litz P.U.D., at Longview, Washington.
244 NLRB No. 146
137
DECISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. (Contentions of the Parties
The Glass Workers contends that the work in dis-
pute has traditionally been assigned by the Employer
to employees it represents and that Company practice
thus favors its claim to the work. The Glass Workers
also argues that its contract with the Employer sup-
ports its claim to the work.
The Employer contends that the assignment of the
work in dispute was based upon past practice. It
states that this past practice is based upon special
skills, acquired by glass workers through training,
that are required for proper installation of Kawneer
Shadowform.
The Sheet Metal Workers contends that the dis-
puted work should have been assigned to its members
based on industry practice and its work jurisdiction as
previously defined by the AFL-CIO Impartial Juris-
dictional Disputes Board (IJDB). 2
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the
Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated
and that the parties have not agreed upon a method
for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
As to the former, it is clear that both Unions are
disputing the assigment of the work of installing cap
and sill flashing and aluminum facia (Kawneer Sha-
dowform).
The Sheet Metal Workers, by letter to the Em-
ployer dated May 10, 1979, asserted its claim to the
work. The Glass Workers, through Ben Johnson's
threats of economic action to retain the work, has
attempted to force the Employer to continue assign-
ing the disputed work to individuals represented by
the Glass Workers. Accordingly, we are satisfied that
there is reasonable cause to believe that an 8(b)(4)(D)
violation has occurred in this case.
As to the latter, the parties have stipulated, and
there is no evidence to the contrary, that there is no
agreed-upon method for the voluntary settlement of
the dispute. Accordingly, we find that this dispute is
properly before the Board for determination.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of disputed work after giving
2 The IJDB decision referred to is one between the Sheet Metal Workers
and another union dated October 5, 1976. It was not issued as a resolution of
the present controversy.
due consideration to various factors.' The Board has
held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute
is an act of judgment based on commonsense and
experience reached by balancing those factors in-
volved in a particular case.4
The following are relevant in making the determi-
nation of the dispute before us:
I. Collective-bargaining agreement
The Employer has a current collective-bargaining
agreement with the Glass Workers which was entered
into on July 20, 1976. This contract states that the
jurisdiction of the Glass Workers shall include the
installation of "all plastics or other similar materials
where used in place of glass ... but not where replac-
ing other building materials." Competent testimony
was received at the hearing indicating that Kawneer
Shadowform historically developed within the glass
industry to take the place of structural glass. The Em-
ployer does not have a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Sheet Metal Workers. Accordingly, we
find that the collective-bargaining agreement between
the Employer and the Glass Workers weighs in favor
of awarding the work to employees represented by
the Glass Workers.
2. Employer assignment and practice
Malcolm McDonald, manager of Twin City Glass
Co., testified that the Employer's practice has always
been to have glassworkers install Kawneer Shadow-
form. The Employer is satisfied with the results of its
assignment and prefers that glassworkers continue to
do this work. Thus, employer assignment and prac-
tice clearly weigh in favor of awarding the work to
employees represented by the Glass Workers.
3. Area practice
Evidence presented by the Employer and the Glass
Workers indicated that in the Longview-Kelso area of
Washington the installation of Kawneer Shadowform
is normally performed by members of the Glass
Workers. This fact was substantiated by the testi-
mony of Raymond Potts, business agent for the Sheet
Metal Workers, who stated that he was not aware, in
the last 4-1/2 years, of any jobs in the Longview-
Kelso area where Kawneer Shadowform had been in-
stalled by sheet metal workers. In light of this evi-
N.L.R.B. v. Radio Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL CIO Columbia Broad-
casting Systeml, 364 U.S. 573 (1961).
International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1 743, A FL -CIO (J. A.
Jones Construction CompanyJ, 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
1138
GLASS WORKERS LOCAL NO. 740
dence. the area practice favors that the work in dis-
pute be performed by employees represented by the
Glass Workers.
4. Industry practice
The evidence presented by the Sheet Metal Work-
ers indicated that the industry practice is to have the
installation of Kawneer Shadowform performed by
sheet metal workers. Evidence presented by both the
Employer and the Glass Workers indicated, however,
that the industry practice was not followed in the
Longview-Kelso area of Washington. Industry prac-
tice thus weighs in favor of awarding the disputed
work to sheet metal workers.
5. Employee skills and efficiency of operation
The record indicates that both groups of employees
possess the necessary skills to perform the work in
dispute, and both groups could perform it with equal
efficiency. Accordingly, the factors of employee skills
and efficiency of operation favor neither group and
are neutral in resolving the dispute before us.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full consider-
ation of all relevant factors involved, we conclude
that employees who are represented by the Glass
Workers are entitled to perform the work in dispute.
We reach this conclusion relying on the collective-
bargaining agreement, employer assigment and prac-
tice, and area practice. As heretofore noted, the in-
dustry practice elsewhere would appear to favor
awarding the work to employees represented by the
Sheet Metal Workers, but this single factor, under the
circumstances herein, is neither determinative nor
sufficient to outweigh the factors favoring awarding
the work to employees represented by the Glass
Workers. In making this determination, we are
awarding the work in question to employees who are
represented by Glass Workers Local 740. but not to
that Union or its members. The present determina-
tion is limited to the particular controversy which
gave rise to this proceeding.
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 pro-
ceeding, the National Labor Relations Board makes
the following Determination of Dispute:
Employees of Twin City Glass Co., who are repre-
sented by Glass Workers Local No. 740 of the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades,
AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of install-
ing cap and sill flashing and aluminum facia (Kaw-
neer Shadowform) at the Vehicle Maintenance and
Storage Facility and Substation Maintenance Facil-
ity, Cowlitz P.U.D., at Longview, Washington.
1139