International Association of Machinists Local 1366

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 916 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Association of Machinists Local 1366
and Copolymer Rubber and Chemical Corpora-
tion and Lamson Corporation and Millwrights
and Machinery Erectors Local 720 , Parties to the
Dispute . Case 15-CD-80
October 20, 1967
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, fol-
lowing a charge filed by Copolymer Rubber and
Chemical Corporation, referred to herein as
Copolymer, alleging that International Association
of Machinists Local 1366, referred to herein as the
Machinists or Respondent, violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act. The charge alleges,
in substance, that Respondent induced and en-
couraged employees of Copolymer and of Lamson
Corporation, herein referred to as Lamson, to en-
gage in a strike or a work stoppage, and also
threatened, coerced, and restrained Copolymer and
Lamson in order to force or require Lamson to as-
sign the work of operating or installing certain pal-
letizing equipment to employees represented by
Respondent rather than to members of the Mill-
wrights and Machinery Erectors Local 720, herein
referred to as Millwrights.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Edward A. Champagne on May
10,1967.E With the exception of Lamson, all parties
appeared at the hearing and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on
the issues. None of the parties 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
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 this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties at the hearing stipulated that
Copolymer receives goods and equipment from out-
side the State of Louisiana valued in an amount ex-
ceeding $50,000 annually and also annually ships
goods with a value in excess of $50,000 outside the
State of Louisiana. Although Lamson was not
represented at the hearing, the record reflects that
its principal office is in Syracuse, New York, and
hat it does a substantial amount of business in Tex-
as, Louisiana, and other States. It also appears that
Lamson's contract with Copolymer for the work
here in dispute amounts to more than $40,000.
The parties stipulated at the hearing that
Copolymer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act. With respect to Lamson, the
Machinists refused to enter into a similar stipulation
but did not contest the Board's jurisdiction in this
regard. We find that Copolymer and Lamson are
and, at all material times herein, have been engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated , and we find , that Machin-
ists and Millwrights are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE AND BACKGROUND FACTS
The work here in dispute involves the installation
of an automatic pallet loader, or stacker, in the
finishing building of Copolymer's plant at Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, otherwise described as a vacuIm
electromechanical machine composed of certain
conveyors, motors, and other elements mounted in
a structural frame with automatic controls. The pal-
let loader is to be used in automatically stacking
bales of rubber.
Copolymer entered into a contract with Lamson
for the purchase and installation of the loader. The
contract amount was in excess of $40,000 and in-
cluded the price of the loader as well as its installa-
tion. The agreement also provided that after the
loader had been installed, a Lamson electrical en-
gineer was required to test and adjust the complete
system, and it further provided that the warranty
applied only if the installation was performed or su-
pervised by Lamson. Thereafter, Lamson's
representative, Joe Henry, discussed the installa-
tion job with H. M. Stafford, business representa-
tive of the Millwrights, and through him hired three
members of that local to perform the installation
work. It appears, however, that before the men re-
ported for work, Albert F. Ledoux, Jr., president of
the Machinists, who had been advised that mill-
wrights had been hired for the job, informed Henry
that the work belonged to the Machinists. Henry
replied that he had no authority to determine to
which union the work should be assigned. On the
night before the work was scheduled to begin,
Ledoux called Henry and told him that there would
be "a picket on his gate" at the plant the following
morning.
I The record was left open to receive an additional exhibit Thereafter,
the record was closed by an order of the Hearing Officer on May 18, 1967
167 NLRB No. 130
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS LOCAL 1366
The millwrights employed by Lamson began the
installation work on schedule the next day. At the
same time , the Machinists caused a picket sign to be
attached to the contractor 's gate of Copolymer's
plant , reading : "On Strike, International Associa-
tion of Machinists , AFL-CIO." It appears that this
was the gate used by Lamson 's employees, and is
not the gate normally used by Copolymer's em-
ployees . No other entrances to the plant premises
were picketed . However , within one-half hour it
was discovered that the wrong picket sign had been
used , and the picket sign was immediately replaced
by one reading : "Contractor Unfair" instead of "On
Strike ." However, the new picket sign did not
identify the contractor . Within a few hours after the
sign had been placed , Lamson 's employees (mill-
wrights) walked off the job and have not since
returned . However, all of Copolymer 's employees,
including those employees represented by the
Machinists , continued working and have continued
working . Apparently , at some later date the picket
sign was removed , but Ledoux testified that the
Machinists were entitled to the work , and should
Lamson return to the job with millwrights to per-
form the work, the Machinists would renew the
picketing.
The record shows that employees of Copolymer,
represented by the Machinists, normally maintain
the machinery and equipment in the plant . In addi-
tion , it appears that these employees have also per-
formed certain modification work in existing plant
facilities and have installed new and modified
equipment such as pumps , turbines , and generators.
On one occasion Copolymer 's employees installed
a stacker in the process building . However, this
stacker , unlike the automatic pallet loader here in
question , apparently was constructed at the
Copolymer plant by Copolymer employees.
On the other hand , the record also shows that
from time to time Copolymer has engaged outside
contractors to construct various plant additions and
facilities , and has also engaged outside contractors
to install various types of equipment and machin-
ery. Employees represented by the Millwrights
frequently have been employed by the outside con-
tractors to perform such installation work.
IV. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Copolymer has taken a neutral position so far as
the assignment of the work here in dispute is con-
cerned, maintaining that this is a matter solely
within the discretion of Lamson in view of the
latter's contract with Copolymer to perform such
work.
Ledoux, on behalf of the Machinists, testified
that the Machinists have no quarrel with
Copolymer and that their only dispute is with Lam-
son, and that the picketing was directed to Lamson,
not Copolymer. Further, the Machinists contend,
in principal part, that because the pallet loader is
917
being installed inside an existing plant facility, it is
"inside" work and, on the basis of past plant prac-
tice, the disputed work belongs to employees
represented by that Union.
The Millwrights take the position that the
disputed work was properly assigned to them by
virtue of Lamson's contract with the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, herein referred to as the International Carpen-
ters, and because of established area practice.
V. APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE
Before the Board may proceed to a determination
of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it
must be satisfied that there is a reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. It
is clear, from the record before us, that Respond-
ent's picketing was directed against Lamson and
that its purpose was to force Lamson to assign the
disputed work to employees represented by the
Machinists, rather than to employees represented
by the Millwrights. Moreover, it is plain that the
dispute is a continuing one in view of Ledoux's
statements that the Machinists intend to renew their
picketing should the millwrights continue to be as-
signed the work by Lamson. Accordingly, we con-
clude, on the basis of the entire record, there is a
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, and that the dispute is
properly before the Board for determination under
Section 10(k) of the Act.
VI.
As stated in International Association of
Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A.
Jones Construction Co.), 135 NLRB 1402, we
shall, pursuant to N.L.R.B. v. Radio and Television
Broadcasting Engineers Union (Columbia Broad-
casting System), 364 U.S. 573, determine in each
case presented for resolution under Section 10(k) of
the Act the appropriate assignment of the disputed
work only after taking into account the evidence
supporting the claims of the parties and balancing
all relevant factors.
A. Collective-Bargaining Agreements
The Respondent Machinists has no collective-
bargaining agreement with Lamson. However,
Copolymer and the Machinists are parties to a cur-
rent collective-bargaining contract conferring ex-
clusive bargaining representation rights on the
Machinists for all "Machinists, Machinist-Welders,
Oilers, Storeroom Clerks, and Toolroom Clerks
working in its Baton Rouge, Louisiana plant." The
contract appears to make no provision for the as-
signment of the type of work in dispute here and it
further provides that "the Company shall have the
right, consistent with the practices exercised in the
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
past to contract out work." Its jurisdictional dispute
provisions clearly do not apply in the circumstances
we are dealing with here , and it is not so contended.
The Millwrights have no collective -bargaining
contract with Copolymer . It claims the disputed
work , however , under the provisions of an agree-
ment between Lamson and the International Car-
penters. This latter agreement provides , in pertinent
part, that Lamson agrees:
To recognize the jurisdictional claims of the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America , to work the hours, pay the wages
and observe the working conditions established
or agreed upon by the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America and the
recognized bargaining agency of the locality in
which any work of our Company is being done,
with respect to journeymen carpenters em-
ployed by our Company.
Although not referring specifically to any particular
jurisdictional claim of specific work by the Carpen-
ters or any of its affiliates , including the Millwrights,
nonetheless , this agreement can be read to cover
the claim herein advanced by the Millwrights. In-
deed , it is clear that Lamson viewed this agreement
as binding on it in the installation of the automatic
pallet loader at the Copolymer plant , inasmuch as
Henry notified the Millwrights of the existence of
the agreement when he contacted that Union to ob-
tain the necessary employees for the installation
work . Moreover , there is no evidence that Lamson
has a similar contractual arrangement with the
Machinists or ever employed employees
represented by the Machinists to perform its instal-
lation work.
It is plain that the Machinists ' contract with
Copolymer offers no support to their claim for the
work in question . It is equally clear that the provi-
sions of the Millwrights ' contract with Lamson,
while not specifically referring to the precise work
involved herein , nonetheless , when considered in
the light of Lamson 's interpretation of the agree-
ment , as noted above, in hiring the employees
represented by the Millwrights to perform its instal-
lation work , lends considerable weight to that
Union's demand for the disputed work.
B. Skills Involved
The record is inconclusive on the matter of the
comparative skills of employees represented by the
contending unions. Beyond the broad assertion by
the Millwrights ' representative that it required a
skilled man to assemble a machine of the size in-
volved here , and that special training for such work
is necessary , there was no specific showing of any
particular skills, training , or special knowledge
required of employees performing such work. On
the basis of the entire record , therefore, it cannot be
said that the skills involved are a significant factor
in making a proper assignment of the work in
question.
C. Plant and Area Practice and Prior As s ignments
In the past several years, Copolymer has con-
tracted out major machinery or equipment installa-
tion work , all of which was performed by em-
ployees of the contractor . In those instances where
such work has been contracted out, none of this
work , or at best a very small part of it, was per-
formed by employees represented by the Machin-
ists. Moreover, there is uncontroverted evidence
that contractors ' employees represented by the
Millwrights have performed a very substantial part
of such work , including other installation work per-
formed in the Copolymer plant by Lamson. There
is no evidence that the Machinists , or any other
labor organization , claimed the prior installation
work assigned to those employees represented by
the Millwrights . Witnesses for the Machinists,
further, were unable to point to a single instance, in
the past several years or more , where work of the
nature here in dispute, which had been contracted
out by Copolymer , was assigned by contractors to
employees represented by that Union.
The record further establishes that employees
represented by the Millwrights normally perform
the type of installation work here in dispute in the
Baton Rouge area.
D. Other Considerations
Other factors , such as Board certifications, effi-
ciency of operations, impact upon employee job
rights , etc., usually considered by the Board in
cases involving jurisdictional disputes , have not
been advanced by the parties in support of their
respective claims , and no evidence relating to such
matters appears in the record.
VII. CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE MERITS OF THE
DISPUTE
Based upon the entire record , and after full con-
sideration of all relevant factors involved , we shall
resolve the issue here by awarding all installation
work , including the leveling and testing , to be per-
formed in connection with the installation of the au-
tomatic pallet loader or stacker at Copolymer's
plant at Baton Rouge , Louisiana , to employees
represented by Millwrights. Lamson 's assignment
of the work to employees represented by the Mill-
wrights is in accord with the interpretation given the
contractual arrangements with the International
Carpenters , its past practice in such contract work,
and follows the work assignments normally fol-
lowed in the Baton Rouge area . Although
Copolymer 's employees have performed certain in-
stallation work , including a stacker in the plant, it
does not appear they have performed such work
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS LOCAL 1366
when it is contracted out by Copolymer, and they
have not installed an automatic pallet loader of the
type herein in dispute. Our present determination,
to award the work to the employees who are
represented by the Millwrights, but not to that
Union or to its members, is limited to the particular
controversy giving rise to this dispute.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board makes the following
Determination of Dispute, pursuant to Section
10(k) of the Act:
1. Millwrights employed by Lamson Corpora-
tion, who are represented by Millwrights and
Machinery Erectors Local 720, are entitled to per-
form all installation work, including the leveling and
919
testing, to be performed in connection with the in-
stallation of the automatic pallet loader at the plant
of the Copolymer Rubber & Chemical Corporation
in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
2. International Association of Machinists Local
1366 is not entitled, by means proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require Lam-
son Corporation to assign the above-described
work to employees it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, International As-
sociation of Machinists Local 1366 shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 15, in writing,
whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requir-
ing Lamson Corporation, by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the above-
described work in dispute in a manner inconsistent
with the above determination.