Intl B'hood of Electrical Workers, Local 480

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 5, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 629 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

INT'L B'HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 480 629 ,
of employment, including safe work practices and/or safety rules,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All employees employed in overhead line construction and
maintenance, including timekeepers and material clerks;
underground construction and maintenance; electric service;
substation construction and maintenance; communication
construction and maintenance; appliance service; meter test-
ing, installation, and repair; Pensacola repair shops; Pen-
sacola garage; warehouse section, Pensacola and Panama
City stores; meter readers and cutout collectors; steam elec-
tric generating plants, Crist Scholz and Lansing Smith;
excluding all office clerical employees, professional employ-
ees, watchmen and/or guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act, as amended.
GULF POWER COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone No. 527-6361, if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 480 and
Vickers Incorporated , Division of Sperry Rand Corporation.
Case No. 15-CD-54. January 5,1966
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Vickers
Incorporated, Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, herein called
Employer, alleging that International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 480, herein called Local 480 or IBEW, had violated
Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Fallon W. Bentz on July 6, 1965. The
Employer, Local 480, and International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 792, herein called Local
156 NLRB No. 50.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
792 or IUE, appeared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
adduce evidence bearing on the issues.' The rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief which the
Board has duly considered.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members
Brown, Jenkins, and Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer is a Delaware corporation engaged at Jackson, Mis-
sissippi, in the production of various components for the,aerospace
industry. The Employer annually receives directly from outside the
State of Mississippi goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000,
and annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points outside the State of Mississippi. We find that the Employer is
engaged iil commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
We find that International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 480, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 792, are labor organizations within
the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The work at issue
The disputed work which gives rise to this proceeding is the installa-
tion of test stands and other related production equipment in a new
addition of the Employer 's plant at Jackson, Mississippi.
i After entering an appearance , Local 480 ' s counsel filed a motion to quash notice of
hearing. When the Hearing Officer stated that he would refer the motion for the Board's
determination, counsel demanded that right to present evidence in support of the motion
and objected to holding of the hearing. The Hearing Officer advised counsel that he
could present such evidence when it was appropriate and for the purpose of conducting an
orderly hearing the proper time for such presentation was after the Charging Party had
placed its evidence in the record . Whereupon , counsel was granted time to file an interim
appeal on such ruling to the National Labor Relations Board. Thereafter, the Board
advised that it would consider the motion in its Decision . At the conclusion of the
recess period , Local 480's counsel refused to participate further in the proceeding. The
Hearing Officer, however, did place into the record , as a rejected exhibit, eight affidavits
submitted by counsel in support of his motion.
The Hearing Officer's referral of the motion for the Board's determination was proper
and his proceeding with the hearing was in no way prejudicial to Local 480. We have
duly considered the motion and as we find it without merit it is hereby denied.
INT'L B'HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 480 631
B. The background facts
The Employer contracted with M. T. Reed Construction Company,
herein called Reed, to construct an addition to the Employer's plant
in Jackson, Mississippi. Reed subcontracted with Matthews Electric
Company, herein called Matthews, to install the complete power and
lighting installation in the new addition. The employees of Matthews
are represented by Local 480. Matthews' contract with Reed does not
call for the performance of the work in dispute.
Local 792 was certified in 1957 as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the Employer's production and maintenance employees.
Successive bargaining agreements have been executed since that time
and the current agreement expires in 1966.
The Employer, upon completion of the contracted construction
work, began to install test stands and other related production machin-
ery in the new addition. It assigned the installation of the equipment
to its maintenance electricians who are represented by Local 792 of
the IUE. In order to meet certain production schedules and dead-
lines, the Employer sought from Matthews the services of two addi-
tional electricians to work with and assist its own employees in the
electrical installation work. Matthews, the owner, questioned whether
IBEW members would work with the Employer's employees repre-
sented by the IUE. A meeting was arranged to discuss the possibility
of utilizing Matthews' electricians and was held April 30, 1965. It
was attended by John Erickson, Local 480's business manager; Robert
Majors, Employer's personnel manager; L. E. Matthews; and Ed
Carsley, maintenance foreman for the Employer. Erickson stated at
this meeting that if IUE and IBEW members worked together, the
IUE would probably raise a jurisdictional dispute issue, and that if
it did not, then the IBEW would. Majors informed Erickson that if
it appeared that there was to be a jurisdictional problem, he would
have to follow his customary practice and use the Employer's main-
tenance electricians to perform all of the work. During this meeting,
Erickson referred to the work as "work that belonged to his people."
According to Majors and Carsley, no mention was made during this
meeting of the comparative rates of pay of IBEW members and IUE
members.
On May 6, 1965, Erickson, in reply to an inquiry by Perry, vice
president of Local 792, respecting the disputed work, stated that Local
792-was doing electrical construction work in installing the produc-
tion machines and that this work belonged to Local 480.
On May 10, 1965, picket signs were placed at the Employer's plant
by the IBEW protesting substandard 'ages and conditions of the
Employer's construction electricians On that same date, Ben Juley,
,632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an IUE International representative, met Erickson and Ralph Brum-
mett of the Jackson Building Trades Council. Erickson claimed that
the picket lines were protesting the fact that IUE members were doing
work that belonged to the IBEW. Juley contended that the work was
covered by Local 792's contract with the Employer and that he would
not agree to give it up. Erickson then stated, "That's our work and
we're going to get it."
As a result of the picketing, employees of Reed and other employees
of subcontractors, who were still performing certain work on the
Employer's new addition, ceased working and did not work further
until the picketing was enjoined, June 22, 1965, by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
C. Contentions of the parties
The Employer contends that the disputed work is similar to work
which has always been done by its maintenance electricians and that
they have performed such work to its satisfaction.
The Employer points out that the installation of the machinery
involved herein requires leveling a machine, connecting any required
water and air sources and the plugging of the electrical connection
to the buss duct. According to the Employer, the plugging phase of
the installation operation involves the same principle as plugging a
lamp into a wall outlet and this phase of the installation is the crux of
the IBEW's claim to the disputed work. The Employer further
asserts that such plugging requires no specialized skills, experience,
or training.
The IUE agrees with the Employer that its members should per-
form the disputed work. The IBE'V contends that the disputed work
is electrical construction work and that it should be assigned to its
members.2
D. Applicability of the statute
We find that there is reasonable cause to believe from the record
before us that the action of Local 480 in picketing the Employer's
plant, which caused employees of Reed and other employees of sub-
contractors to cease working, was undertaken in an attempt to force
the Employer to assign to Local 480's members the work of installing
test stands and other related production equipment in the new addi-
tion to the Employer's plant, in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of
the Act. Accordingly, this dispute is properly before the Board for
determination.
,'We make this finding despite the fact that the IBEW in its motion to quash notice
of hearing asserts that it was not claiming the work herein found to be in dispute. In
view of other evidence in the record establishing to the contrary, this belated disclaimer
is self-serving and can be given little weight.
INT'L B'HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 480
E. Merits
633
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make an affirmative
award of the disputed work after giving consideration to various
relevant factors, and the Board has held that its determination in a
jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based upon common sense
and experience in balancing such factors.3
1. Contract; company practice
The IUE was certified in 1957 to represent a unit of production
and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Mississippi
plant, and since that time it has entered into successive collective-
bargaining contracts with the Employer. Although the current con-
tract includes the maintenance electricians to whom the Employer has
assigned the disputed work, there is no specific coverage therein
respecting this work. In the past, however, work assignments similar
to the disputed work have always been assigned by the Employer to its
maintenance electricians.
2. Skills involved
The record indicates that the disputed work involves the moving
and leveling of machinery, the connection of any required water or air
sources, and the plugging of the machinery into the buss duct. Appar-
ently the only electrical work involved is the final stage of plugging
the machinery into the buss duct which is comparable to plugging a
lamp into a wall outlet. In view of the minimal electrical work
involved, there appears to be no particular skill, knowledge, or experi-
ence required and either of the contending groups is qualified to per-
form the work.
F. Conclusions as to the merits of the dispute
On the basis of the record as a whole, and on appraisal of all the
relevant factors, we conclude that the maintenance electricians rep-
resented by Local 792 of the IUE are entitled to the work in dispute.
In so concluding, we have noted the Employer's past practice of assign-
ing similar work to its electrical maintenance employees, the Employ-
er's assignment of the disputed work to its electrical maintenance
employees and their satisfactory performance of such work, and the
fact that these employees possess the required skills. In making this
determination, which is limited to the particular controversy which
gave rise to this proceeding, we are assigning the disputed work to
electrical maintenance employees of the Employer who are represented
by Local 792 of the IUE but not to that Union or its members.
s International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743 , AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones
Construction Company ), 135 NLRB 1402.
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Dispute.
1. Maintenance electricians employed by Vickers Incorporated,
Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, who are represented by Inter-
national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
Local No. 792, are entitled to perform the installation of test stands
and other related production equipment in the new addition to the
Employer's plant at Jackson, Mississippi.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 480, is
not entitled to force or require Vickers Incorporated, Division of
Sperry Rand Corporation, its successors or assigns, to assign any of
the above work to employees it represents.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
480, shall. notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing,
whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring Vickers
Incorporated, Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, its.successors or
assigns, by means proscribed by Section: 8(b) (4),(D) of the Act,.to
assignn_ the above-described work to. employees.,of such Company
.represented by such Union.
Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals Division and, International
Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Local
Union '625, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States
and Canada , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.' Cases Nos. 9-RCS?85,
9-RC-6.95, and 9-RC-6296. January 5,1966
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Mark Fox. The Hearing Officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the'National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
by direction of the Regional Director for Region 9 these cases were
transferred to the Board for decision. Briefs,have been filed by the
Employer and the Plumbers 2
1 The petitioning unions are hereinafter referred to as . Machinists and Plumbers. • w
The Employer ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and briefs
adequately-present the issues and positions of,the .piirties..
156 NLRB No. 61.