Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 5

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 799 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 5 799
reprisals , or in any manner infringe upon , interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local Union No. 2089 , United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization , by discharging our employees or otherwise discriminating
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to employees Everett Bag-
gett, Aubrey Edward Baggett, Willie Melvin Wood, Billy E . Britt, Charlie Edgar
Tart, and Paul E. McDonald , and make each of them whole for any loss of
pay and other emoluments they may have suffered by reason of our discrimina-
tion against them.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain in good faith with Local Union No. 2089,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of our employees in the appropriate unit, with respect
to wages, hours , grievances , and other terms and conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of aforesaid Union , or any other labor organization.
BENSON VENEER COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the employees listed above if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1831
Nissen Building , 310 West Fourth Street , Winston-Salem , North Carolina, Telephone
No. 723-2911.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 5, AFL-
CIO [Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company] and Joseph J. McAl-
lister and Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paper-
hangers of America, Glaziers Local Union No . 751, AFL-CIO.
Case No. 6-CD-178. January 13, 1966
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following the filing of charges under
Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. A hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Edward A. Grupp on October 8, 1965. All parties appeared
at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to exam-
ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing upon
the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing
were free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs were
filed by Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company and International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local 5, AFL-CIO.
156 NLRB No. 80.
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
that case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Brown and Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following
findings :
1. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, hereafter referred to as PPG,
is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the business of manufactur-
ing, selling, and installing glass and related products. As stipulated
by the parties, PPG annually ships goods valued in excess of $50,000
from its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, facility to points outside of
Pennsylvania, and it annually receives at plants within the State of
Pennsylvania goods valued in excess of $50,000 shipped from points
outside that State. The parties stipulated, and we find, that PPG is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The parties stipulated, and we find, that International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local 5, AFL-CIO, hereafter referred to
as IBEW, and Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers
of America, Glaziers Local Union No. 751, AFL-CIO, hereafter
referred to as Glaziers, are labor organizations within the meaning of
the Act.
The Dispute
A. Statement of facts
The essential facts herein are not in dispute. The parties stipulated
that IBEW and Glaziers each claimed for its members the work of
installing automatic equipment for the opening and closing of glass
doors at the Presbyterian-University Hospital construction site in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They further stipulated that on or about
August 25, 1965, members of IBEW physically prevented an employee
of PPG, who was a member of Glaziers and who had been assigned
by PPG to install such equipment, from performing his task. They
also stipulated that such interference took place in the presence and
with the knowledge of an IBEW business agent and that the business
agent did nothing to stop his members' interference with the work.
The record shows that the work in dispute involves installation of
an automatic door-opening device known as "Pittcomatic," a product
which is distributed and installed in the Pittsburgh area exclusively
by PPG. This device consists of a set of mats, a small electric motor,
a special door hinge, and a hydraulic pump with attached lines. Step-
ping on the entrance mat causes emission of a low-voltage electrical
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 5 801
charge which activates the hydraulic equipment, which in turn opens
the door. Stepping off the mat breaks the electrical connection,
allowing the door to close.
The record further shows that PPG does not employ members of
IBEW; its employees are members of Glaziers. Those who are
assigned to install Pittcomatic door openers are given a 3-day training
session at the plant of the manufacturer of the device. In addition,
representatives of the manufacturer occasionally visit PPG to explain
new techniques to such employees and to discuss any problems which
may have arisen during the course of their work. PPG has two
employees in the Pittsburgh area who devote approximately 25 percent
of their time to such installations and the accompanying service.
These employees are glaziers by trade and have had no electrical
training.
PPG and Glaziers are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement
expiring on August 31, 1967, in which PPG agrees that ". . . the Union
shall have sole jurisdiction over installation of the following kinds and
types of work ... All metal doors, glass doors, metal door frames and
any incidental work in connection therewith. . . ." PPG has always
assigned employees represented by Glaziers to perform such work.
The record likewise shows that, while IBEW members have never
installed Pittcomatic door openers, they have serviced them after
installation when the service contractor was one who had a, collective-
bargaining agreement with IBEW. IBEW members have also
installed other brands of automatic door-openers which operate on
different principles, particularly electric-eye types which require con-
siderable electrical knowledge and skill.
B. Contentions of the parties
IBEW contends that the disputed work should be performed by
electricians employed by independent electrical contractors. It argues
that the electrical skills required for the installation of the automatic
door-opening equipment can be found only in a trained electrician,
that glaziers do not have such skills, and that the area practice in the
industry is to assign such work to electricians.
PPG and Glaziers contend that ,the disputed work should be per-
formed by PPG employees who are represented by Glaziers. They
argue that the work is covered by their current collective-bargaining
agreement, that glaziers have the skill to perform the work properly,
that it is the practice in the Pittsburgh area and in other metropolitan
areas to use glaziers to install the Pittcomatic door opener, and that to
use electricians would be inefficient and uneconomical. They also point
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
out that the Board has certified Glaziers as representative of "installers
of all automatic doors and accessories" at another glass industry
employer in Pittsburgh.
C. Applicability, of the statute
The Board must be satisfied that there -is reasonable cause to believe
that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act was violated before it may proceed
with a determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act.
The parties herein stipulated that IBEW claims the disputed work
for its members and that on or about August 25, 1965, members of
IBEW, in the presence of and without interference by an IBEW
business agent, physically prevented a PPG employee represented by
Glaziers from installing a Pittcomatic door opener. We find, there-
fore, that reasonable cause exists to believe that a violation of Section
8(b) (4) (D) has occurred, and that the dispute is properly before
the Board for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act.
D. Merits of the dispute
A major contention made by IBEW is that the work in dispute
requires the skill and training of an electrican. In support of this
contention, IBEW has shown that automatic door openers other than
Pittcomatic are often installed by electricians, and that such door-
openers, as well as the Pittcomatic, are often serviced by electrical
contractors employing electricians. But the door openers other than
Pittcomatic requires substantial electrical work, and they differ in this
respect from the Pittcomatic. The record shows that very little
electrical work is involved in installing the Pittcomatic. Although
there is no doubt that electricians have the skills to perform the dis-
puted work, neither is there doubt that glaziers with the training of
PPG's employees also have sufficient skill (even in electrical work)
to perform the disputed task.
Another major contention made by IBEW is that the custom in the
industry in the Pittsburgh area is to assign such work to electricians.
In support of this argument, IBEW introduced evidence concerning
the work of installing door-openers other than Pittcomatic. As stated
above, such devices may very well necessitate utilizing the skills of an
electrician because of the substantial amount of electrical work
involved. That is not true of the Pittcomatic. IBEW did not point
to any installation of a Pittcomatic by electricians. It was able to
show only that some of the electrical contractors who service the
Pittcomatic use electricians for this purpose.
There is no dispute that PPG has always assigned the work of
installing the Pittcomatic to its own employees represented by Glaziers
and that employees so assigned have always been glaziers by trade.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL- WORKERS, LOCAL 5 803
Nor is there any dispute that PPG assigned such work to its own
employees on the Presbyterian-University Hospital construction site
which is the locus of the controversy herein. We find that such assign-
ment was in accordance with the provision of the collective-bargaining
agreement between PPG and Glaziers which is quoted above. The
record also shows that PPG used glaziers to perform Pittcomatic
installations in Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago,
St. Louis, Newark, New Jersey, Cleveland, Buffalo, Dallas, and Hous-
ton. The record shows, on the other hand, that in New York City,
four trades, including glaziers and electricians, share the work of
installing the door and automatic door opener. We note, moreover,
that PPG contends that use of an electrician would be uneconomical
because it might be required to pay 8 hours of stand-by pay in order
to obtain a half-hour of work. This argument is countered by the
suggestion of IBEW that contracting the work out to an electrical
contractor who is doing other work at the construction site would
obviate the requirement of paying standby pay.
Weighing the factors relied upon by PPG and Glaziers on the one
hand against those cited by IBEW on the other, we conclude that
the former outweigh the latter. As PPG has always used its own
employees to perform such work in the Pittsburgh area, as it has
done the same in 11 additional cities, other than the city of New York,
as PPG has assigned such work to its own employees on the Presbyte-
rian-University Hospital job which is in dispute herein, as PPG
employees are sufficiently skilled to perform such work, as the assign-
ment to members of Glaziers was in accordance with the terms of the
collective-bargaining agreement, we shall determine the dispute in
favor of PPG employees represented by Glaziers. Our present deter-
mination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to
this proceeding. In making this determination, we are awarding the
controverted work to PPG employees represented by Glaziers, and
not to Glaziers or its members.
Accordingly, we find that IBEW was not, and is not, entitled by
means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act to force or
require PPG to assign the disputed work to its members, rather than
to PPG employees represented by Glaziers.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
the case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
1. Employees of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, currently rep-
resented by Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers
217-919-66-vol. 156-52
:804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of America, Glaziers Local Union No. 751, AFL-CIO, are entitled to
-perform the following work :
The work of installing the automatic equipment for opening and
.closing glass doors at the Presbyterian-University Hospital construc-
tion site at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 5, AFL-
CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of
the Act to force or require Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company to assign
the above-described work to electricians who are currently represented
by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 5,
AFL-CIO.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 5, AFL-CIO, shall notify
-the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, whether or not it will
-refrain from forcing or requiring Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company to
-assign the work in dispute to its members, rather than to employees of
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company represented by Brotherhood of
Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Glaziers Local
-Union No. 751, AFL-CIO.
Local Union No. 28, Sheet Metal Workers' International Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, and Mell Farrell , Its President and Johnson
Service Company
Local Union No. 28 , Sheet Metal Workers' International Asso-
ciation , AFL-CIO, and Mell Farrell , Its President ; Mechanical
Contractors' Association of New York, Inc. ; Sheet Metal Con-
tractors Association of New York, Inc. and Johnson Service
Company and Kerby Saunders , Inc.; George A. Fuller Com-
pany ; National Sheet Metal Works, Inc., Parties in Interest.
Cases Nos. 2-CC-961 and 2-CE-29. January 14, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 13, 1965, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent Local Union No. 28, Sheet
Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO, hereafter
referred to as the Union, and Mell Farrel, its president, filed excep-
156 NLRB No. 79.