Intl. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 1078 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 640, AFL-CIO and Stromberg-Carlson
Communications, Inc. and Communications Work-
ers of America. Case 28-CD-172
March 28, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
following a charge filed September 14, 1976, by the
Employer , Stromberg-Carlson Communications,
Inc., alleging that Respondent , International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, Local 640 , AFL-CIO
(hereinafter called Respondent), had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. A hearing was held on
December I and 2 , 1976, in Phoenix , Arizona, before
Hearing Officers Gregory Z. Meyerson and Kenneth
D. Meadows . Both the Employer and Local 640, as
well as Communications Workers of America ap-
peared at the hearing and were afforded a full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing
on the issues . Thereafter, all parties filed briefs.
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 Officers made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error . They are
hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this proceeding the
Board makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
As the parties have stipulated, Stromberg-Carlson
Communications, Inc., is a California corporation
engaged in the business of installing interconnect
telephone systems in and around Phoenix, Arizona.
During the course and conduct of its business
operations during the past 12 months, the Employer
purchased and had delivered to its place of business
in Phoenix, Arizona, goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000, directly from suppliers located
outside the State of Arizona. Therefore, we find that
Stromberg-Carlson is an employer within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), and is engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce within the meaning
I In light of our decision herein, we need not pass upon the Hearing
Officer 's evidentiary ruling rejecting Resp . Exhs. 3, 4, and 5.
2 Although the events of April 1975 cited herein cannot be, pursuant to
228 NLRB No. 133
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Furthermore, we
find that it will effectuate the purpose of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 640, and Communications Workers of Ameri-
ca are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the installing of telephones
and telephone equipment at a facility under con-
struction at 3150 North 31st Avenue, Phoenix,
Arizona, for United Parcel Service and interconnect-
ing the same to Mountain Bell Telephone Company
facilities.
B. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer is engaged in the business of
installing and maintaining interconnect telephone
systems in Phoenix, Arizona. An interconnect tele-
phone system differs from an internal communica-
tions system in that the former is connected directly
into the telephone company system. In October 1973,
the Employer assumed the operations (and stock,
assets, liabilities) of a predecessor company, Arcata
Communications, Inc. Local 890, Communications
Workers of America (CWA), was certified in 1973,
pursuant to a Board election, as the bargaining
representative of Arcata's telephone installation
employees before Stromberg-Carlson succeeded Ar-
cata. The collective-bargaining contract between
Stromberg-Carlson and CWA took effect July 1,
1975, and will expire June 30, 1978.
In a letter dated April 17, 1975,2 Respondent wrote
to the Employer charging the latter with a failure to
pay its workers, represented by CWA, the "prevailing
rate" for its journeymen sound technicians. Respon-
dent threatened to picket if the Employer did not
upgrade its pay standards to $8.95 per hour plus
fringes, as established by the labor agreement
between the Arizona Chapter NECA Sound Division
and Respondent for construction work in the
Arizona sound and signal industry. Respondent
Sec. 10(b), the basis for an 8(bX4XD) violation , these facts have been
considered as background information . In addition , it should be noted that
the alleged 8(bX4XD) activity was similar in both 1975 and 1976.
INTL. BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
expressly disavowed any desire for recognition.
During the same month that Respondent sent this
letter to the Employer, one of Respondent's stewards
approached Roger Tickler, a carpenter employed by
Cap Cabinet Shop, working at the Scottsdale
Memorial Hospital site , and asked him why he was
on the job since there were picket signs outside.
Tickler responded by saying that he was unaware of
any picket signs , and asked what the dispute was
about. The steward replied that he would have to
find out from the picketers. Tickler then walked off
the job. The picket signs in question called for
standard wages for the Employer's journeymen
sound technicians. On April 29, 1975, via mailgram,
the Employer demanded that Respondent back up
within 48 hours its charge that the Employer was not
paying the prevailing rate for the job classification in
dispute.
On September 9, 1976, Respondent sent the
Employer the same letter which it had sent in April
1975, with the exception that Respondent claimed
that the prevailing rate was $9.87 per hour plus
fringes. Again the Employer sent Respondent a
mailgram demanding that the Respondent furnish
the Employer with proof upon which it based its
charge. On September 19, 1976, Respondent's busi-
ness manager, Glynn Ross , approached Gary Bol-
man, a communications technician for the Employer
at the United Parcel Service jobsite. Ross told
Bolman that he had nothing against Stromberg
employees but that Respondent felt compelled to
protest the Employer's substandard wages. In re-
sponse to Ross' assumption that Bolman was making
only $3 or $4 an hour, Bolman said that he made
"better than seven." Ross subsequently told Bolman
that he would have the picket signs up within 10
minutes . The picket signs read as follows:
Notice to the Public Stromberg-Carlson
Communications Paying Substandard Wages
IBEW Local #640
In addition to the picketing above, Respondent
picketed the Employer's offices for a week commenc-
ing September 13, 1976.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that Respondent picketed
during the month of September 1976 for the purpose
of forcing the Employer to reassign the work in
question to Respondent's members in violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act. While
Respondent does not deny the picketing activity, as
a The Employer and Respondent disagree over the title of the job
classification over which Respondent made its area standard claim.
Respondent uses the term "Journeyman Sound Technician" whereas the
1079
well as Ross' conversation with Bolman , Respondent
does assert that its only objective was to force the
Employer to pay area standard wages. Respondent
contends that at no time has it communicated, in any
way, a demand for the work in dispute. Furthermore,
Respondent asserts (but makes no admission) that
even if its objective were recognition, that is not an
objective proscribed by subparagraph (D) of Section
8(b)(4) of the Act, nor are recognitional questions
subject to a 10(k) proceeding. The Employer con-
tends that Respondent's denial of any desire for the
work has not been an effective disclaimer, and that it
never made a good-faith effort to find out what the
Employer did pay with regard to the job classifica-
tion in dispute. Furthermore, the Employer takes the
position that it does in fact pay area standard wages
for the job classification in question.3 Thus, the
Employer contends that Respondent's motive was
something other than to protest substandard wages,
but even if it did picket for area standards its
disclaimer was not effective. CWA, in agreement
with the Employer, argues that Respondent's conten-
tion as to area standards picketing is a sham, and
that its actions have vitiated its disclaimer.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with 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) that the parties have not agreed upon a
method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
For the Board to find reasonable cause, there must
be (1) a genuine dispute, (2) proscribed activity under
Section 8(b)(4)(i) or (ii), and (3) an objective to force
the Employer to reassign the work.
We conclude that there is no dispute, because
Respondent has affectively disclaimed the disputed
work assignment. There is no evidence in the record
that contradicts Respondent's claim that it had
picketed the Employer for a week in September 1976
solely for the purpose of forcing the Employer to pay
the Employer's workers area standard wages. At no
time has Respondent made any demand or request
for any work assignment on behalf of its members.
We will not infer such a proscribed object without
more evidence. Furthermore, the Employer's conten-
Employer contends that the classification is "communications technician."
The Employer, in essence , argues that Respondent is confusing apples with
oranges.
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion that Respondent also desired recognition is not quash the notice of hearing in the above-captioned
relevant to this proceeding.4 case.
For these reasons, we conclude that there is no
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of ORDER
the Act has been violated and, therefore, we shall It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing
issued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed.
4 Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 423, AFL-CIO
and International Union Of Operating Engineers, Local 18, 18A, 18B, AFL-
CIO (Electrical Constructors), 183 NLRB 895, 898 (1970).