IBEW, Local 24

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 14, 1973

207 N.L.R.B. 337 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

IBEW , LOCAL 24 337
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 24, AFL-CIO, CLC and General Electric
Company, Medical Systems Division.' Case
5-CD-198
November 14, 1973
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed on December 11, 1972, by General
Electric Company, Medical Systems Division (herein
called General Electric or the Employer), alleging
that International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local 24, AFL-CIO, CLC (herein called Local
24 or the Union), had violated the Act by engaging in
certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing
or requiring the assignment of certain work described
below to employees represented by Local 24 rather
than to its own employees.
A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Louis J.
D'Amico on February 20, 21, and 22, 1973. Thereaf-
ter, the Employer and the Union filed briefs and, in
accord with the Board's grant of leave to the parties
to do so, also filed reply brief s.2
Pursuant to the Board's Order of May 22, 1973, a
reopened hearing was held before Hearing Officer
D'Amico on June 14, 18, and 20, 1973. Thereafter,
further briefs were filed by the Employer and the
Union.
All parties appeared at the hearing, and at the
reopened hearing, and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. All of
the briefs filed by the parties 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 Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Hearing Officer at the hearings and finds that they
are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
affirmed, except as noted below.3
i As amended at the hearing to reflect its correct-designation
2 During the course of the above-noted hearing, the parties entered into a
stipulation which related to the existence of a jurisdictional dispute. After
full consideration of the entire record in this proceeding at that time, the
Board concluded that the parties had not reached a common understanding
as to the' meaning and extent of the aforementioned stipulation According-
ly, on May 22, 1973, the Board ordered that the hearing be reopened for the
purpose of receiving evidence as to the existence of a jurisdictional dispute.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that General
Electric Company is a New York corporation
engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
electrical products throughout the United States;
that within the past year, a representative period, its
facilities within the 'State of Maryland received
electrical products valued in excess of $50;000 from
points outside thereof; and that the Medical Systems
Division is a division of General Electric Company.
Accordingly, 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
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local 24 is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The disputed work involves the uncrating, assem-
bly, and installation of X-ray equipment at the North
Building, University of Maryland Hospital, Balti-
more, Maryland. Local 24 is contending herein that
one-half of the employees performing this work
should be union electricians .4
B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
General Electric sells X-ray equipment to hospitals
-and other medical facilities in the Baltimore, Mary
land, area. Typically, the contracts for such sales
include, at a fixed total price, assembly and installa-
tion of the equipment ' at the customer's premises.
The Employer has always utilized its own unrepre-
sented employees-field service technicians-to ac-
complish this work. In over 9T percent of " installa-
tions, these technicians have performed the work
exclusively. However, when installations have been
at the sites of new construction, members of Local
24-electricians-have worked along with the Em-
ployer's technicians at various ratios.5 Such jointly
performed installations have represented less than 3
3 During the course of the reopened hearing, Local 24 filed with the
Board a motion which sought, inter alia, reversal of'a Hearing Officer's
ruling restricting the introduction of evidence on certain issues. On June 15,
1973, the Board issued an Order reversing the Hearing Officer's ruling.
4 Hereinafter , when the term "disputed work" is used, it refers to the
work performed by one-half of the employees engaged in uncratmg,
assembling, and installing X-ray equipment.
5 The testimony indicated that at so6e projects the ratio had been one-
(Continued)
207 NLRB No. 42
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
percent of the Employer's total X-ray installation
work.6
General Electric asserts that it has never desired to
have electricians perform any of its X-ray installation
work,/ but has agreed in the past to have some of
them on the job at unionized construction sites
because the leverage possessed there by Local 24
made General Electric concerned that a labor
dispute, delaying completion of the hospital in-
volved, would otherwise result.
During, the spring of 1972,7 General Electric was
negotiating a contract for the sale of over $1 million
worth of X-ray equipment to be assembled and
installed at the University of Maryland Hospital's
North Building, then under construction. In connec-
tion therewith, representatives of General Electric
and Local 24 met to discuss possible problems that
might arise between them. As of that time, it appears
that both General Electric and its customer were
willing to have the X-ray installation work performed
by both union electricians and employer technicians,
on the basis of a one-to-one ratio.& However, Local
24 rejected that ratio and, instead, demanded that the
work be done by one Employer technician working
with a crew made up entirely of union electricians.
This was unacceptable to both General Electric and
the hospital. There were subsequent contacts on this
issue between General Electric, the Union, and
hospital officials, but no agreement resulted there-
from.
Thereafter, a contract for the sale of the X-ray
equipment was executed which provided that all
assembly and installation of the equipment would be
performed by General Electric personnel and that if
any outside labor was used it would be at the
customer's expense. In November, representatives of
the Employer and the Union met again. General
Electric offered to add one union electrician to its
installation crew of approximately five technicians.
Local 24 rejected this and said that it would agree to
the one-to-one ratio it had previously turned down.
But that was no longer acceptable to . General
Electric, as its customer was no longer able or willing
to absorb the additional cost involved.
On December 5, the Employer's technicians began
to assemble and install the X-ray equipment at the
hospital. On the following day, Local 24 began to
to-three (union electricians-to-employer technicians), while at others the
ratio was one-to-one. The parties are in agreement that such installations
-performed jointly by electricians and technicians-occurred at four new
construction sites in the Baltimore area during the years 1966 through 1968.
General Electric asserts that those were the only instances to the last 10
years of electricians working on its X-ray installations Local 24 alleges two
other such instances, one in 1967 and the other in 1971. For purposes of this
Decision, we do not find it necessary to resolve this conflict as, in any event,
it is clear that union electricians, participated in X-ray installations on an
extremely infrequent basis.
6 It appears from the record that the union electricians performing such
picket the jobsite with signs stating that General
Electric did not have a collective-bargaining contract
with the Union and did not pay prevailing wages or
require other union conditions. This picketing ceased
on December 12, the day after the unfair labor
practice charges in this case were filed. Except for the
first` day thereof, the technicians crossed the picket
line and continued their work.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
Local 24 contends that no jurisdictional dispute
within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(4)(D) and 10(k)
exists here because competing claims for the work in
dispute were not made by two or more groups of
employees, there having been no showing that the
field service technicians asserted such a claim at or
before the time of the Union's picketing- Alternative-
ly, Local 24 maintains that, if a jurisdictional dispute
does exist, the disputed work should be awarded to
its members on the basis of the past practice of the
Employer in the Baltimore area.
The Employer contends that there are competing
claims for the disputed work and that Local 24
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by exercising
coercive pressure-picketing--designed to force the
assignment of that work to its members rather than
to the technicians who had been performing it.
Further, the Employer maintains that its technicians
should be awarded the work on the grounds of their
superior skills, efficiency, and economy of operation,
the predominant past practice, and its own assign-
ment of the work.
D. The 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.
We find no merit in Local 24's assertion that the
Employer's field service technicians do not constitute
a competing group of employees. They, as employees
of the Employer, were exclusively performing the
work in question at the time the dispute arose, they
continued to perform it despite the union picket line,
and three of them testified that they desired to
continue performing such work. In our view, such
work were actually supplied by the electrical subcontractor at the particular
construction site, who. in turn, charged General Electric for the electricians'
services.
All dates hereinafter are in 1972, unless indicated otherwise.
It is clear from the record that because of their preference for work
done by the field service technicians , hospital officials wanted them to
perform as much of the installation work as was feasible under the
circumstances The one-to-one ratio represented the maximum utilization of
union electricians that they would countenance- It appears that they would
have preferred performance exclusively by the technicians.
IBEW, LOCAL 24 339
circumstances constitute sufficient evidence to indi-
cate that the technicians claim the disputed work .9
Further, as Local 24 admittedly claims the same
work for its members, it is clear that-contrary to its
contentions herein--competing claims for the work
in dispute have been made by two employee groups.
Accordingly, as Local 24 picketed the hospital jobsite
to force reassignment of one-half the installation
work from the Employer's technicians to the electri-
cians it represented, we find that there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated and that the dispute is properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the
Act.
followed and, previous to that, only one project is
even alleged by Local 24. In any event, General
Electric's technicians have been exclusively perform-
ing the work in question in over 97 percent of all X-
ray equipment installations contracted for by the
Employer.
Therefore, as indicated in the previous cases and
supported by the facts herein, the practice of
including some electricians on some X-ray equip-
ment crews was merely a narrow exception to the
Employer's broader practice of assigning the vast
majority of such work to its own technicians.13
2. Skills and training
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board
make an affirmative award of the disputed work
after giving due consideration to various relevant
factors. As the Board has stated, the determination in
a jurisdictional dispute case is an act of judgment
based on commonsense and experience in weighing
these factors.1° The following factors are relevant in
making a determination of the dispute before us.
1. Past practice
Local 24 asserts that General Electric has followed
a past practice of including union electricians, as well
as its own technicians, on the crews which install X-
ray equipment at new construction sites. The Board,
however, has previously refused to accord controlling
weight to such a practice where it is based-as it is
here-on the nature of particular projects and,
inferentially, on the nature of employee representa-
tion at those projects, rather than on the nature of
the disputed work itself." The record herein shows
that the assembly and installation of X-ray equip-
ment at hospitals under construction does not vary
from that performed at existing hospitals.12 More-
over, we note that even with respect to new construc-
tion sites, there have been no more than six projects
in the past 10 years on which the practice of
employing electricians on installation work was
9 See Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 54 (The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company), 203 NLRB No. 21, Dock Builders, Shores, House Movers,
Pile Drivers and Foundation Workers, Local Union No 1456, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Vibroflotation
Foundation Company), 199 NLRB 453 , General Teamsters Local 326,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (Eazor Express, Incorporated), 203 NLRB
No. 154, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, and its
Local 639 (Bendix Radio Division of the Bendix Corporation), 138 NLRB 689.
See also Local No 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (Mansfield Contracting Corporation), 206 NLRB No. 84.
10 NL.R.B. v. Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local
1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia
Broadcasting System], 364 U.S. 573 ( 1961); International Association of
Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J.A Jones Construction Company),
The record establishes that General Electric's
technicians possess the skills necessary to perform
the disputed work to a degree far greater than the
electricians represented by Local 24. Newly hired
technicians undergo an intensive 6-month training
program that includes theoretical studies in X-ray
physics, optics, photography, and electronics, as well
as training on the specific components of General
Electric's line of X-ray equipment. This training,
which is under the management 'of the Employer's
Medical Systems Institute, continues from time to
time throughout the technicians' employment. Fur-
ther, in cases of certain especially sophisticated
equipment-some of which was to be installed in the
North Building-for proper installation to be effect-
ed, it is necessary for the assigned technicians to go
to General Electric's manufacturing facilities to
observe particular aspects of the equipment being
built.
Journeymen electricians have no training in most
of the above-noted areas and little, if any, familiarity
with the Employer's equipment. Their basic skills are
such, however, that they can perform installation
work if given close supervision by trained field
service technicians. But this leads to duplication of
effort as, in the absence of electricians on the job, the
technicians would be performing that work them-
selves. It is not disputed that, when electricians are
included in the employee complement performing
135 NLRB 1402.
11 Local Union No 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Company), 193 NLRB 765; Local 501,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (New York
Telephone Company), 172 NLRB 1651; Local 25, international Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Company), 152 NLRB
723.
12 It appears, however, that there is a difference between new
construction and existing structures relating to the primary electrical site
preparation work needed . But, all of that, as well as related structural work,
is always performed by employees of either the electrical subcontractor or
the hospital . General Electric's installation crews have never done such
work themselves.
13 Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Company), supra
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
installation work, the job takes longer to complete
and the number of employees needed is greater.
3. Efficiency and economy of operation
The record supports the Employer' s contention
that, if the disputed work were awarded to the
electricians, the cost of installation would increase by
more than 50 percent. Further, it also appears that
the Employer's customers-because of their greater
confidence in the expertise of technicians-prefer
that the work be performed by them.
4. Employer's assignment of work
We find that General Electric's assignment of the
disputed work was based on sound business consid-
erations, including the economy, efficiency, and
customer satisfaction resulting therefrom.
Conclusions
Upon the record as a whole, and after full
consideration of all relevant factors involved, we
conclude that the technicians employed by the
Employer are entitled to the disputed work. In
reaching this conclusion, we have relied on the
Employer's assignment of the disputed work to its
own employees; the fact that this assignment is
consistent with the Employer's predominant past
practice; the relative skills of employees in the
contending groups; and efficiency and economy of
operation. Our determination, awarding the work to
the technicians , is limited to the particular controver-
sy 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
proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of General Electric Company,
Medical Systems Division , are entitled to exclusively
perform the work of uncrating , assembling, and
installing X-ray equipment at the North Building,
University of Maryland Hospital, Baltimore, Mary-
land.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local 24, AFL-CIO, CLC, is not entitled, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to
force or require the assignment of the above work, or
any part thereof,, to its members or to employees it
represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute , International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, Local 24, AFL-CIO,
CLC, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 5,
in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing
or requiring, by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, the assignment of the disputed
work in a manner inconsistent with this determina-
tion.