IBEW Local 26

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 261 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

IBEW LOCAL 26 261
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Lo-
cal No. 26, AFL-CIO and Taylor Woodrow Blitman
Construction Corporation and Electric Utility Em-
ployees Union. Cases 5-CD-169, 5-CD-170, 5-
CD-171, and 5-CD-173
January 31, 1972
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Pepco is a public utility company engaged in the
supply and installation of various classes of electrical
service and power to customers in the Greater Wash-
ington metropolitan area. It is incorporated in the Dis-
trict of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia,
and it annually does a gross volume of business in
excess of $250,000.
Taylor and Pepco concede, and we find, that they are
each an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
charges filed by Taylor Woodrow Blitman Construc-
tion Corporation (herein referred to as Taylor) and
Electric Utility Employees Union (herein referred to as
EUEU), alleging that Respondent, International
Brotherhood of Electric Workers, Local 26, AFL-CIO
(herein referred to as Local 26) has violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed
activity with an object of forcing or requiring the as-
signment of certain work described below to employees
represented by Local 26 rather than to employees of
Potomac Electric Power Company (herein referred to
as Pepco). A hearing was held before Hearing Officer
John L. Kluttz on October 28, 1971. All parties' ap-
peared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.
EUEU and Pepco filed briefs in support of their posi-
tions and they have been duly considered.
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 rulings made by the
Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Taylor is a Delaware corporation having its principal
office in New York, New York, and is engaged in the
construction of a shopping mall in the city of Rockville,
Maryland. In the course of its operation at Rockville,
Maryland, Taylor annually receives goods and materi-
als directly from outside the State of Maryland valued
in excess of $50,000.
' Pepco was permitted to intervene at the hearing.
195 NLRB No. 39
We find that EUEU and Local 26 are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The disputed work involves the installation of trans-
formers and the extending of primary feeders to service
termination facilities at sites selected by the customer
either within or outside the customer 's building.
B. Background
Pepco supplies electrical power to customers in the
District of Columbia and in certain areas in nearby
Maryland and Virginia. Part of the service provided by
Pepco includes the installation of cables, transformers,
and related equipment and the connection thereof to
equipment owned by the customer. Prior to 1967,
Pepco customarily installed the equipment in vaults
located outside the customer's building. The installa-
tion work was performed by Pepco's cable pullers and
cable splicers, represented by EUEU.
In 1967, Pepco began providing "rooftop" installa-
tion service by which the same equipment was installed
in facilities located at the top of the customer's building
rather than outside the building. The advantage of a
rooftop installation, according to Pepco, is that it al-
lows Pepco to supply a larger electrical load require-
ment with a smaller loss of electrical power. Rooftop
installations are primarily used in large office and
apartment buildings which require large power sources
for elevators and air conditioners. The rooftop installa-
tion work is performed by the same classifications of
Pepco employees as is the outside installation work,
that is, cable pullers and cable splicers represented by
EUEU.
During the latter part of 1970, two representatives of
Local 26, Noone and Moseley, met with Pepco Vice
President Dannattell, and informed Dannattell that the
installation of any electrical facilities beyond the cus-
tomer's building line was, in their opinion, within the
262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
province of Local 26 members to perform. Dannattell
replied that it was Pepco's policy to perform all instal-
lation services up to the point at which the customer's
disconnecting device is located, usually the current
transformer cabinet, and this is true whether the instal-
lation is a rooftop or outside installation . Noone and
Moseley responded that if Pepco insisted on perform-
ing rooftop work inside the building line, they would
"have to pursue the matter further."
On June 30, 1971, another meeting was held among
Noone, Moseley, and Dannattell, during which the Lo-
cal 26 representatives repeated their belief that the roof-
top installation work should be performed by Local 26
members rather than Pepco employees. Specific refer-
ence was made to work at the East-West Towers in
Bethesda , Maryland, which was scheduled to begin
within a few days of the meeting. When Dannattell
repeated that the work properly belonged to Pepco
employees, the Local 26 representatives replied that
they would "have to see by what other means they
could pursue the matter."
On July 6, 1971, members of Local 26 began picket-
ing at the East-West Towers jobsite and at Pepco's
main office building in Washington. The pickets at the
East-West site carried signs containing the following
language : "Unfair to Local 26 IBEW-Potomac Elec-
tric Power Company wages and working conditions are
substandard for work of type being performed within
this building." Similar signs were displayed at the
Pepco office building. Picketing at both locations con-
tinued until July 15, 1971, at which time Dannattell
met with representatives of Local 26, the general con-
tractor, and the electrical subcontractor for the East-
West project. Dannattell was informed that all building
trades employees had walked off the job as a result of
the picketing, and that the project was being delayed.
Local 26 again stated that the disputed work should be
performed by its members. Dannattell agreed to con-
sider subcontracting the rooftop work to the electrical
subcontractor, but no final decision was reached. The
next day, Pepco employees were ordered off of the
project site, and subsequently Pepco agreed to subcon-
tract the rooftop work.
On August 17, 1971, members of Local 26 began
picketing at the Landsburgh building in the Rockville
Town Shopping Mall in Rockville, Maryland, where
Pepco was scheduled to install rooftop service. The
signs carried by the pickets again protested Pepco's
allegedly substandard wages and working conditions,
When Pepco employees arrived to perform their work,
they were ordered off the jobsite by the general contrac-
tor. Picketing continued until August 20.
On September 5, 1971, Local 26 members picketed
the Thomas Edison Building in Washington. When
Pepco employees arrived to make a rooftop installa- into the record in the present proceedings
tion, a crane operator, who was needed to lift the equip-
ment to the roof, walked off the job.
C. Contentions of the Parties
Pepco urges that the disputed work be assigned to its
employees represented by EUEU because: ( 1) Pepco
has a collective-bargaining agreement with EUEU en-
compassing the disputed work ; (2) Pepco employees
have always performed the disputed work ; (3) Pepco
employees are experienced in performing such work;
(4) assignment of the work to Pepco employees pre-
serves the integrity of Pepco 's system ; (5) assignment
of the work to Pepco employees is necessary to insure
the personal safety of the Pepco employees who main-
tain the system ; (6) installation by Pepco employees
insures reliability of service ; (7) assignment to Pepco
employees will result in greater efficiency ; and (8) when
others perform the work , Pepco still must supervise the
installation , provide the equipment , and perform all
necessary maintenance.
EUEU takes a position consistent with that urged by
Pepco.
Although Local 26 did not file a brief with the Board,
nor did Local 26 call any witnesses during the 10(k)
proceedings , its position throughout the related 10(1)
proceedings ' was that Local 26 has made no claim for
the disputed work . Moreover Local 26 maintains that
it has engaged in no unlawful conduct but rather pick-
eted solely for the purpose of protesting Pepco's sub-
standard wages and working conditions.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it
must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been vi-
olated.
We find that the incidents recited above provide rea-
sonable cause to believe that Local 26 engaged in pick-
eting and other prohibited conduct with an object of
forcing or requiring Pepco to assign the disputed work
to members of Local 26 rather than its own employees
represented by EUEU. Respondent's claim that its sole
object was to protest Pepco's substandard wages and
working conditions is belied by Respondent's repeated
verbal demands for the work and the record evidence
that it little knew, or cared, about the wages and condi-
tions of Pepco's employees. At the least, assignment of
the work in dispute was one of Respondent's objects.
Thus, we find that the dispute is properly before the
' The related proceedings under Section 10(1) of the Act were stipulated
IBEW LOCAL 26 263
Board for determination pursuant to Section 10(k) of
the Act.'
E. Merits of Dispute
1. Past practice
Pepco has been performing the installation of trans-
formers, cables, and related equipment since 1934.
Since that time, the work has been performed by Pep-
co's own employees. In 1967, Pepco began installing
the same equipment in facilities located on the roof of
customers' buildings when such an installation was ad-
vantageous. The same employees perform the rooftop
installation as had previously performed, and are still
performing, similar work outside the customer's build-
ing.
Since 1967, Pepco has completed approximately 17
rooftop installations using its own employees, and ap-
proximately seven more such installations are pending
completion. In only three instances has Pepco com-
pleted rooftop installations with other than its own
employees.`
Prior to the incidents giving rise to the current dis-
pute, Local 26 had made no claim to the disputed work.
Thus, it is clear that Pepco has maintained a practice
of assigning the disputed work to its own employees.
2. Skills and training
It is uncontroverted that Pepco employees possess
sufficient skills to perform the disputed work, having
done so since 1934. Moreover, there is nothing in the
record to indicate that the work must be performed by
electricians. We conclude, therefore, that Pepco em-
ployees are competent to perform the work.
3. Efficiency and economy
As indicated above, the same employees perform
rooftop service as perform work on installations out-
side the customer's building. Because the employees
can perform both types of installation, they can easily
be transferred from rooftop to outside job, or vice versa,
when the situation warrants.
The installation of transformers and cables is one
part of the integrated electrical power service supplied
by Pepco and performed by Pepco employees. When
the installation is made by Pepco employees, the integ-
rity of the entire system is maintained, and Pepco em-
ployees working on other parts of the system are famil-
iar with the installation and are secure in knowing that
' Contrary to Local 26's contention that it has made no claim for the
disputed work, we find its conduct, described above, to be sufficient evidence
of such a claim to place the dispute properly before the Board
' Of these three, two were projects involved in the current dispute, and
the third was a building housing IBEW's headquarters
the installation was performed according to Pepco
standards and procedures.
Whether or not Pepco employees install the equip-
ment, it is still owned by Pepco. In those instances in
which Pepco subcontracted the disputed work, Pepco
still purchased, supplied, and maintained the equip-
ment. Also, when the work is subcontracted, a Pepco
supervisor must be present to insure proper installa-
tion. No such supervisor need be present when Pepco
employees perform the work.
From the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, we conclude that the assignment of the
disputed work to Pepco employees will result in greater
efficiency and economy than assignment of the work to
members of Local 26.
4. Certification and contracts
EUEU has been the certified bargaining representa-
tive for all Pepco employees, including cable pullers
and cable splicers, for over 30 years. IBEW does not
represent any Pepco employees.
Pepco and EUEU are currently parties to a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement , effective through May 31,
1972, covering the employees who perform the dis-
puted work.
We find, therefore, that Pepco's assignment of the
disputed work to its own employees is consistent with
EUEU's certification and with Pepco's collective-bar-
gaining agreement with EUEU.
5. Pepco's assignment of work
As indicated, Pepco assigned the disputed work to its
own employees, based on business considerations, in-
cluding consideration of the efficiency and economy
resulting therefrom.
CONCLUSIONS
In view of all of the above and the record as a whole,
we conclude that the work in dispute should be
awarded to Pepco employees, and we shall determine
the dispute in favor of Pepco employees represented by
EUEU. In making this determination, we are awarding
the work in issue to Pepco employees represented by
EUEU, and not to EUEU or its members.
Accordingly, we find that Local 26 was not, and is
not, entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act to force or require Pepco to assign the dis-
puted work to its members rather than to Pepco em-
ployees represented by EUEU.
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SCOPE OF DETERMINATION
Pepco, in its brief, requests that the Board determine
the dispute by awarding the disputed work to its own
employees, and further requests that the Board deter-
mination apply to the entire geographic area in which
Pepco operates, that is, the Greater Washington met-
ropolitan area.
In the past it has been the Board's policy to make an
award broad enough to encompass the geographic area
in which an employer does business, wherever jurisdic-
tions of the competing unions coincide, in circum-
stances where there is an indication that the dispute is
likely to recur.' In view of the fact that Local 26 has
picketed at least three locations at which Pepco em-
ployees have attempted to perform the disputed work,
Local 26 has made several demands for the disputed
work, and Pepco has future commitments to perform
the disputed work, we believe that there is a substantial
likelihood that this dispute will be repeated. Therefore,
our determination in this case applies to all similar
disputes occurring within the Greater Washington
metropolitan area, wherever the jurisdictions of Local
26 and EUEU coincide.
' Local 299, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association . AFL-CIO
(Metalab Equipment Company), 173 NLRB 1329 , and cases cited therein
at fn. 4
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this case, the
National Labor Relations Board makes the following
determination of dispute.
A. Employees of the Potomac Electric Power Com-
pany currently represented by Electric Utility Em-
ployees Union are entitled to perform the following
work:
All work involving the installation of transformers
and the extending of primary feeders to service
termination facilities at sites selected by customers
either within or outside the customer's building
within the Greater Washington metropolitan area.
B. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local No. 26, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or
require Potomac Electric Power Company to assign the
above-described work to employees represented by Lo-
cal 26.
C. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local No. 26, AFL-CIO, shall
notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing,
whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring
Potomac Electric Power Company to assign the work
in dispute to its members rather than to employees of
Potomac Electric Power Company represented by
Electric Utility Employees Union.