Glaziers & Glassworkers Local Un. No. 1621

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 641 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

GLAZIERS & GLASSWORKERS LOCAL UN. NO. 1621 641
Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No. 1621 and
Hart Glass Company, Inc. and International
Association of Bridge, Structural , Ornamental,
Reinforcing Iron Workers, Riggers and Machinery
Movers, Local Union No. 377. Case 20-CD-417
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
February 19, 1975
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Hart Glass Company, Inc.,
herein called the Employer, alleging that Glaziers
and Glassworkers Local Union No. 1621, herein
called Glaziers, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D) of
the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity
with an object of forcing or requiring the Employer
to assign certain work to employees represented by it
rather than to employees represented by Internation-
al Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental,
Reinforcing Iron Workers, Riggers and Machinery
Movers, Local Union No. 377, herein called Iron
Workers. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Joseph R. Wirts on August 5,
14, and 30, 1974. All parties appeared at the hearing
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and to cross-examine witnesses, and to
adduce evidence bearing on the issues . Thereafter,
the Employer, the Glaziers, and the Iron Workers
filed briefs, which have been duly considered.
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 rulings of the Hearing Officer made, at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error. They are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board
makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer is engaged in wholesaling and
installing glass and glazing products and maintains
offices in San Jose, California. During the calendar
year preceding the hearing, the Employer's revenues
exceeded $500,000 and its purchases of goods and
supplies received directly from outside the State of
California exceeded $50,000.
I The agreement provides that the Glaziers has junsdiction over the
"fabrication , assembly and installation of .. aluminum ... materials .
216 NLRB No. 129
Glaziers and Iron Workers are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE WORK IN DISPUTE
The work in dispute involves the installing and
caulking of prefabricated metal window frames into
precast concrete window openings.
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer, a glazing subcontractor and a
member of the Glass Management Association
(GMA), was a party to a multiemployer agreement
with the Glaziers for the 15-20 glaziers that it
employs on its regular payroll. The Employer is not a
party to any agreement with the Iron Workers and
has no ironworkers on its regular payroll. The
Employer does occasionally employ ironworkers by
calling them from their hiring hall.
In June 1973 the Employer entered into an
agreement with a general contractor (Hathaway) to
furnish and install aluminum window frames and
storefront doors, to supply and install glass, and to
seal the windows to the precast concrete window
openings and to seal the glass to the windows in a
Pacific Gas and Electric (PGE) office building in San
Jose, California. Subsequently, the Employer notified
the Glaziers in accordance with its usual practice,
that its own employees would perform the work of
installing the prefabricated aluminum windows on
the PGE job. On March 14, 1974, the Employer
received a letter from the Iron Workers claiming the
work of installing the windows on the PGE project
and requesting that the Employer assign the work to
members of the Iron Workers. Thereafter, represent-
atives of Hathaway, the Employer, the Glaziers, and
the Iron Workers had a prejob conference to settle
the matter. At this meeting the Employer announced
that it had assigned all metal frame work and all
glass work to the glaziers on its payroll in accordance
with its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Glaziers,' and the latter claimed all the work. The
Iron Workers stated that it was claiming the work of
installing and caulking the aluminum framework to
the concrete. The Iron Workers asked for a copy of
the blueprints and subsequently submitted the
dispute to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes
relative to store front and window construction in any type of building."
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board (IJDB). Although the Employer was aware of
the Iron Workers action and was requested to submit
its views pertaining to the facts of the dispute it
apparently decided not to participate in the proceed-
ing.
On April 19, 1974, the IJDB issued an award
finding that the installation of fabricated metal
windows should be assigned to members of the Iron
Workers on the basis of trade practice. The dispute
continued, however, because the Glaziers threatened
to picket the jobsite if the Employer attempted to
reassign the work to members of the Iron Workers.
The Employer assigned the work in dispute to its
own employees in late June 1974 and the disputed
work was completed in early August 1974.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The Iron Workers contends that the notice of
hearing should be quashed because all parties to the
proceeding are bound to the procedure and proceed-
ings of the IJDB . Alternatively, in the event the
dispute is properly. before the Board, the Iron
Workers urges that the work in dispute should be
awarded to ironworkers in view of established trade
and area practices , prior decisions of the IJDB
pursuant to the "Blue Book," 2 and contractual
obligations.
The Employer and Glaziers contend that the work
was properly awarded to employees of the Employer
on the basis of their collective -bargaining agreement,
and because the employees possess the necessary
skills, the Employer was following its own past
practice, and it is more efficient and economical to
assign the work to its own employees.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to the determina-
tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act,
it must be satisfied that ( 1) there is reasonable cause
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated,
and (2) the parties have not agreed upon any
methods for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
As to (1) above, it is not disputed that Glaziers
threatened to picket the project site if the Employer
attempted to reassign the disputed work to members
of the Iron Workers.
With respect to (2), above, the Iron Workers
contends that the notice of hearing should be
quashed because, inter alia, all parties agreed to be
bound to the procedures and proceedings of the
2 The Glaziers and Iron Workers were parties to the "Blue Book"
agreement from 1961 until March 1 , 1974, when the former served notice
that it abrogated the "Blue Book" agreement.
3 International Union of Operating Engineers, Local V6 AFL-CIO (Frank
P. Badolato & Son), 135 NLRB 1392 (1962). United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local 1622 (0 R. Karst), 139
IJDB and that the IJDB award constituted a
voluntary adjustment of the dispute within the
meaning of Section 10(k).
It is well settled that "where one party had not
agreed to be bound by a decision of the [IJDB] it
cannot be said that the parties have submitted to us
`satisfactory evidence that they have adjusted, or
agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjustment
of, that dispute.' "3 In the present proceeding the
Iron Workers offered evidence to show that the
Employer was aware that Iron Workers and Glaziers
submitted facts to the IJDB relevant to the dispute
and that the Employer and Hathaway were asked to
state their views concerning the matter and that the
Employer was kept fully aware of the proceedings
before the IJDB.
In our view this evidence fails to show that the
Employer agreed to be bound by the proceedings. In
fact the testimony offered by the Employer shows
that it never agreed to be bound by the award of the
IJDB and did not take part in the proceedings.
Respondent also contends that the Employer as
part of its contract with Hathaway agreed to
"comply with all working conditions [and] labor
agreements" established by Hathaway, who in turn
was a member of the Associated General Contractors
which is a party to the Iron Workers master
agreement which commits AGC to the IJDB. In our
opinion this contract does not bind the Employer to
the procedures of the IJDB, because the contract
with Hathaway does not mention any method for
settling disputes, and the particular portion of the
contract relied on by Iron Workers does not amount
to an agreement to submit a dispute to the IJDB. In
addition the record does not show that the Employer
has ever signed or stipulated in writing to the plan for
the settlement of jurisdictional disputes which pro-
vides that only employers who have signed such
stipulations are entitled to have jurisdictional dis-
putes resolved by the IJDB.
Thus, we conclude, on the basis of the entire
record, that as the Employer did not agree to be
bound by the procedures of the IJDB and did not
participate in those proceedings, there was no
agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment of
the dispute herein .4 Hence, we deny the Iron
Workers motion to quash the notice of hearing.
We conclude that on the basis of the entire record
there is reasonable cause to believe a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that at the time
of the instant dispute there did not exist any agreed-
NLRB 591, 594-595 (1%2).
4 Obviously without merit is the Iron Workers contention that the
Employer has become a party to the Iron Workers master agreement simply
because the Employer has hired employees on the terms set forth in the
agreement.
('}LAZIERS & GLASSWORKERS LOCAL UN. NO. 1621 643
upon or approved method for the voluntary adjust-
ment of the dispute to which all parties were bound.
Therefore, the matter is properly before the Board
for determination.
D. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of disputed work after giving
due consideration to and balancing all relevant
factors. The following factors are relevant in making
a determination of the dispute before us.
1. The collective-bargaining agreement
The record shows that the Employer's collective-
bargaining history has been with the Glaziers for at
least 10 years. The Employer's current agreement
with the Glaziers provides that employees represent-
ed by the Glaziers will perform the work involving
the installation of aluminum frames used in construc-
tion of windows. The Employer is not a signatory to
any agreement with the Iron Workers. This factor
gives great weight to the Glaziers claim for the
disputed work.
2. Employer and area practice
The record shows that the Employer's employees,
all of whom are members of the Glaziers, have
worked for him for several years. During this period,
the Employer has consistently assigned the disputed
work to its employees. Only when the Employer was
faced with a demand for the disputed work from the
Iron Workers, and then only if the Glaziers agreed,
did the )Employer hire ironworkers to work with
Glaziers in a composite crew. However, even at those
times when the Employer hired ironworkers his own
employees continued to perform some of the disput-
ed work.
'Although the Iron Workers contends that the
disputed work is traditionally assigned to ironwork-
ers, the record shows that such assignment has not
been traditional with this Employer.
Accordingly, we find that company practice favors
the continued assignment of the disputed work to the
Employer's employees represented by the Glaziers.
3. Economy and efficiency
Members of Glaziers have performed the work in
dispute to the Employer's satisfaction for many
years . They have the skills and experience to perform
all aspects of the required work, thus avoiding the
need to hire ironworkers . In addition, the Employer
presented evidence to show that the contract terms
offered by the Iron Workers would of necessity
increase its hourly costs, in that when two or more
ironworkers were employed on the job the Employer
would have to pay one of them the wages of a
foreman, whether or not that employee acted as a
foreman.
Also, it has' been the Employer's experience that
the work performed by ironworkers must be checked
more carefully than that done by glaziers. This is so
because when the ironworkers have installed the
windows, they do not have to install the glass, while
the glaziers do. But if the frames are not plumb and
square, the resulting pressure will break the glass.
Since this is their responsibility, the glaziers would
have to recheck all the openings before installing the
glass, which, if the ironworkers installed the frames,
would mean a duplication of labor. Furthermore, if
the glaziers install the frames knowing they will have
to fit the glass later, they will do so more carefully.
We find that these factors of efficiency and
economy also favor the Company's assignment.
E. Conclusions as to the Merits of the Dispute
Having considered all pertinent factors present
herein, we conclude that employees represented.by
Glaziers are entitled to perform the work in dispute.
This assignment is consistent with the terms of its
collective-bargaining agreement, Employer practice,
and efficiency and economy of operation., Accord-
ingly, we shall determine the existing jurisdictional
controversy by awarding the work of installing and
caulking of prefabricated window frames into precast
concrete window openings to employees represented
by Glaziers, rather than to employees represented by
Iron Workers. In making this determination, we are
awarding the work in question to employees repre-
sented by Glaziers, but not to that labor organization
or its members.
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 Dis-
pute:
Employees of Hart Glass Company, Inc., who are
represented by Glaziers and Glassworkers Local
Union No. 1621, are entitled to perform the work of
installing and caulking prefabricated metal window
frames into precast concrete window openings.