Iron Workers Local 1 (Advance Cast Stone Co.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 2002

338 N.L.R.B. 43 (N.L.R.B. 2002)

IRON WORKERS LOCAL 1 (ADVANCE CAST STONE CO.) 1
Bridge, Structural, and Reinforcing Iron Workers,
Local Union 1 of The International Association
of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforc-
ing Iron Workers, AFL–CIO and Advance Cast
Stone Company, Inc. and Brick and Stone Ma-
sons Local 20, Lake County Illinois, a/w Interna-
tional Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft-
workers, AFL–CIO. Case 13–CD–610
September 26, 2002
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, COWEN, AND BARTLETT
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed
on May 8, 2001, by the Employer, Advance Cast Stone
Company, Inc., alleging that the Respondent, Iron Work-
ers Local 1, violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National
Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity
with an object of forcing the Employer to assign certain
work to employees it represents rather than to employees
represented by Bricklayers Local 20.1 The hearing was
held on May 29 and 30 before Hearing Officer Lisa
Friedheim-Weis.
The National Labor Relations Board affirms the hear-
ing officer’s rulings, finding them free from prejudicial
error.2 On the entire record, the Board makes the follow-
ing findings.3
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer, a Wisconsin corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture of architectural precast concrete at its
facility in Random Lake, Wisconsin, and in the installa-
tion of precast concrete in Wisconsin and the Chicago,
Illinois area. The parties stipulate, and we find, that the

1 Except where specifically indicated, all dates refer to 2001.
2 Member Liebman did not participate in the decision on the merits.
3 All of the parties filed posthearing briefs with the Board. On June
29, Arbitrator William Gordinier issued a decision in which he found
that the Employer was not signatory to any contract requiring jurisdic-
tional disputes to be decided under the National Plan. Thereafter, on
July 10, the Employer filed a motion to reopen the record, seeking to
submit Arbitrator William Gordinier’s decision and related documents.
On July 13, the Bricklayers filed a motion for leave to file supplemental
statement, requesting to introduce the same arbitration decision into
evidence. On July 25, the Board issued a Notice to Show Cause why
the Board should not grant the motions. On August 2, the Iron Workers
filed a response to the show cause notice, opposing the motions, and
alternatively, requesting leave to file a supplemental statement if the
Board granted the motions. We grant the Employer’s and Bricklayers’
motions and deny the Iron Workers’ alternative motion. However, for
the reasons stated below, we find that there is no agreed-on alternate
method of resolving the dispute, and we therefore find it unnecessary to
rely on the arbitrator’s decision. With respect to the Iron Workers’
alternative motion, we find that any arguments about the arbitration
should have been stated in its response to the Notice to Show Cause.
Because we do not rely on the arbitrator’s decision, a supplemental
statement is unnecessary in any event.
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Iron Workers
Local 1 and Bricklayers Local 20 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
For many years the Employer was signatory to consent
agreements with Bricklayers District Council No. 1 and
Iron Workers Local 1 and employed employees repre-
sented by each Union to perform the erection and instal-
lation of precast concrete slabs at construction sites in the
Chicago area. The Employer terminated its agreement
with the Iron Workers in 1997 and ceased employing
employees represented by the Iron Workers. The Iron
Workers did not challenge the Employer’s termination of
their collective-bargaining agreement. The Employer has
maintained its collective-bargaining relationship with the
Bricklayers and continues to employ employees repre-
sented by that Union.
In late March 2001, the Employer began precast erec-
tion work on a five-story office building in Deerfield,
Illinois, called the Nine Parkway North project. The
Employer assigned the work to its normal crew, which
consists of bricklayers, and a crane operator and an oiler
who are represented by the Operating Engineers.4
Shortly after the Employer began work, an Iron Workers
steward for the structural steel contractor on the project
threatened to picket the site if the Employer did not use
iron workers to install the precast concrete. In view of
the threats, the general contractor requested that the Em-
ployer cease working at site for a short time in order to
avoid a shutdown while a critical phase of the construc-
tion, concrete pouring, was completed. The Employer
complied. The general contractor also strongly urged the
Employer’s president, Matthew Garni, to resolve the
dispute with the Iron Workers. Garni declined to employ
iron workers to perform the work. When the Employer’s
crew of bricklayers returned to the jobsite, the Iron
Workers picketed for 3 days, causing all work at the pro-
ject to stop temporarily. Iron Workers pickets carried
signs identifying the Employer as the target of the picket-
ing and stating that the dispute was for “Breach of Con-
tract.” The picketing resulted, among other things, in a
significant amount of lost time and the Employer’s in-
ability to meet its deadline, as well as an increase in con-
struction costs overall. The general contractor threatened
to charge the increased construction costs that it incurred
to the Employer and to “re-evaluate its relationship with
4 The Employer has a core crew of employees on its payroll who are
represented by Bricklayers in addition to the oiler and crane operator.
The Operating Engineers is not a party to this proceeding.
338 NLRB No. 13
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
[the Employer].” The Iron Workers filed a demand for
arbitration over the work, which was resolved after the
close of the 10(k) hearing.5
The dispute at the Nine North Parkway project is not
the first among the parties. In August 1998, at a con-
struction site called the Block 120 project in Chicago,
iron workers employed by other subcontractors walked
off the job because the Employer did not assign precast
erection work to a composite crew that included iron
workers as well as bricklayers. After the general con-
tractor threatened to charge late fees, the Employer en-
tered into a project-only agreement with the Iron Work-
ers. The agreement provided that the Employer would
use a composite crew of bricklayers and iron workers to
erect precast concrete at the site. It did not mention or
incorporate the Iron Workers’ collective-bargaining
agreement.6
In August 2000, at the Goodman Theatre project in
Chicago, the Iron Workers picketed in an attempt to
force the Employer to use iron workers for precast instal-
lation. The Employer filed charges with the National
Labor Relations Board, but withdrew them after the Iron
Workers disclaimed the work. Thereafter, the Iron
Workers filed a grievance over the work. Despite the
Employer’s contention that the Joint Arbitration Board of
Associated Steel Erectors of Chicago, Illinois (JAB),
which heard the grievance, had no jurisdiction over the
Employer, the JAB ruled that the Employer was bound
by the Iron Workers Principal Agreement, and that the
work must be performed by a composite crew of iron
workers and bricklayers. The Employer appealed the
decision of the JAB to Federal district court. The matter
was still pending before the court at the time this case
was pending before the Board.
Further, in January or February 2001, the Iron Workers
threatened to picket the University of Chicago dormitory
project because the Employer was using only employees
represented by Bricklayers to perform precast erection
work. Pursuant to the June 2000 Agreement between the
Associated Steel Erectors of Chicago, Illinois, and the
Iron Workers (the Principal Agreement), the Iron Work-
ers submitted the dispute to the Joint Conference Board

5 As stated above, Arbitrator Gordinier found that the Employer was
not party to the Iron Workers’ contract.
6 The Employer also agreed by letter dated December 8, 1998, on a
project-only basis, to use a composite crew of bricklayers and two iron
workers at its Cathedral Place project after its equipment at that site
was vandalized. There is no evidence that the Iron Workers damaged
the equipment, however. Additionally, in December 1998, at a nearby,
week-long project called Rush Garage, the Employer voluntarily used
the same composite crew of employees that it employed at Cathedral
Place to perform the installation of precast concrete. The Employer did
not sign a contract with the Iron Workers at either site.
established by the Standard Agreement between the Con-
struction Employers Association and the Chicago and
Cook County Building and Construction Trades Council
(JCB), which ruled that the Employer must use a com-
posite crew. The Employer filed an action in Federal
district court seeking to vacate the JCB’s award. That
action, like the one concerning the Goodman Theatre,
was still pending at the time this case came before the
Board. Notwithstanding the district court action, the
Employer complied with the JCB’s ruling because of
pressure from the general contractor, its largest customer,
but indicated by letter dated April 19, 2001, that its com-
pliance was limited to the project.
In spring 2001, the Iron Workers picketed the
LaRabida Children’s Hospital construction site in Chi-
cago because the Employer had no iron workers on its
crew. The picketing caused a temporary shutdown of
that project. As a result of the picketing, the Employer
contracted out the remaining phase of its work (disman-
tling a crane) in order to avoid further job actions.
Thus, the record establishes that from 1998 through
2001, the Iron Workers have picketed or threatened to
picket five sites, including the Nine North Parkway site,
and filed demands for arbitration at three of those sites,
with the object of compelling the Employer to use iron
workers on its crews performing precast installation
work.
B. Work in Dispute
The hearing officer found that this dispute involves the
work of assembling and dismantling erection cranes and
the erection of precast architectural materials performed
by the employees of the Employer at the Nine Parkway
North project. The Iron Workers contends that the dis-
puted work involves three tasks: (1) assembling and dis-
assembling erection cranes, which should be awarded to
a composite crew of employees represented by Operating
Engineers and Iron Workers; (2) unloading, handling,
and erecting steel lugs and brackets attached to the struc-
tural framing of the building to receive precast panel,
which should be awarded solely to employees repre-
sented by Iron Workers; and (3) unloading, handling, and
erecting architectural precast wall panels, which should
be awarded to a composite crew of employees repre-
sented by Iron Workers and Bricklayers.7
7 The record contains scant evidence about the crane assembly and
dismantling work. It appears that while employees represented by
Bricklayers help set up and take down certain cranes, at least some of
the crane assembly work is performed by employees represented by the
Operating Engineers. It does not appear that any party hereto seeks to
take away work that is within the jurisdiction of that labor organization.
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 1 (ADVANCE CAST STONE CO.) 3
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer and the Bricklayers contend that there is
reasonable cause to believe that the Iron Workers vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act and there is no
agreed-on voluntary method of resolution to which all of
the parties to this dispute are bound. They contend that
the Board must therefore make a determination of the
merits of the dispute. Both the Employer and the Brick-
layers contend that the disputed work should be awarded
to employees represented by the Bricklayers based on the
Employer’s collective-bargaining agreement with the
Bricklayers, its practice of assigning the work to Brick-
layers over the years (particularly the 4 years since ter-
minating its agreement with the Iron Workers), the Em-
ployer’s preference, efficiency and economy, skills and
training, and area practice. The Bricklayers further con-
tends that the specter of job loss and prior Board awards
involving the Unions favor awarding the disputed work
to employees it represents.
The Iron Workers contends that this is a contractual
dispute rather than a jurisdictional dispute. It also argues
that agreed-on alternative methods of resolving the mat-
ter exist and that the Board should quash the notice of
hearing in this proceeding. Specifically, the Iron Work-
ers contends that it and the Bricklayers are affiliated lo-
cals of national and international unions that are mem-
bers of the Building Trades Department (BTD) of the
AFL–CIO, and that as such, they are bound to abide by
the terms of the constitution of the BTD. The constitu-
tion requires that jurisdictional disputes between member
unions be resolved under the “National Plan” that was
executed by their International Unions in 1954 and re-
newed in 1962. The National Plan in turn requires that
disputes be submitted to local boards such as the JCB.
The Iron Workers also contends that the Employer is
bound to the Iron Workers Principal Agreement, effec-
tive 2000–2003, by virtue of the JAB decision concern-
ing the Goodman Theatre project and the JCB decision
concerning the University of Chicago dormitory project,
both of which applied the Principal Agreement. The
Principal Agreement requires the Employer to resolve
disputes in accordance with the provisions of the Na-
tional Plan.
Alternatively, the Iron Workers contends that portions
of the work in dispute should be assigned to employees it
represents based on collective-bargaining agreements,
the Employer’s past practice and assignments, relative
skills and training, trade agreements between the Iron
Workers and Bricklayers International Unions, area and
industry practice, the 2000 and 2001 JAB and JCB
awards, and concerns of efficiency, economy, and safety.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination of
a dispute under Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satis-
fied that there are competing claims for work, that there
is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
been violated, and that the parties have not agreed on a
method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
We find that there are competing claims for the work
and that there is reasonable cause to believe that a viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. The record es-
tablishes that Iron Workers first threatened to picket the
Nine North Parkway project with the object of acquiring
the disputed work for employees it represents, alone or in
composite crews with employees represented by the
Bricklayers who were then performing it. As a result of
the threat, the general contractor at the site required the
Employer to cease working during an important phase of
construction. When the Employer resumed work at the
site, the Iron Workers picketed for 3 days, causing all
work there to stop.
The Iron Workers asserts that it picketed the site, as its
pickets signs indicated, because the Employer was in
breach of the Principal Agreement applied by the deci-
sions the JAB and JCB. However, the Employer is not
signatory to the Principal Agreement or to any other
agreement that might reasonably be construed as binding
the Employer to it.8 The Iron Workers’ clear objective in
picketing the site and demanding arbitration was to ob-
tain the disputed work being performed by employees
represented by the Bricklayers.
The Bricklayers did not make an explicit claim for the
disputed work; however, the Board has held that per-
formance of work by a group of employees is evidence
of a claim for the work by those employees, even in the
absence of a declarative claim. J.P. Patti Co., 332
NLRB 830, 832 fn. 6 (2000), citing Longshoremen
ILWU Local 14 (Sierra Pacific Industries), 314 NLRB
834, 836 (1994). Hence, there are competing claims for
the work in dispute.
Additionally, we find that there is no agreed-on volun-
tary mechanism for resolving this dispute. Thus, the
Employer is not a signatory to the Iron Workers’ Princi-
pal Agreement or to any agreement containing such a
mechanism. The project-only agreement that the Em-

8 The Iron Workers argues that the Employer is bound by the Princi-
pal Agreement under the JAB’s award. We find no merit in that con-
tention. The award fails to state the basis for the JAB’s finding that the
Employer is bound to the Principal Agreement even though it is not
signatory to that agreement or to any other agreement implicating it.
See, e.g., Operating Engineers Local 318 (Kenneth E. Foeste Ma-
sonry), 322 NLRB 709, 714 (1996) (declining to give weight to arbitra-
tor’s decision lacking rationale).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4
ployer signed with respect to the Block 120 project
makes no reference to the Principal Agreement and nei-
ther do the Employer’s letters consenting to use compos-
ite crews at the Cathedral Place and Rush Garage con-
struction sites. The Employer is not a signatory to any
agreement between the Iron Workers International and
the Bricklayers International Unions, and clearly not to
an agreement that requires the use of composite brick-
layer and iron worker crews for the work in issue or the
submission of disputes to the joint boards. Therefore,
none of the agreements cited by the Iron Workers are
binding on the Employer. Laborers Massachusetts
Council (A. Amorello & Sons), 314 NLRB 61, 63 (1994).
Moreover, the project-only agreements that the Employer
operated under in the face of picketing, threats to picket,
or joint board decisions are devoid of reference to
mechanisms for the resolution of jurisdictional disputes,
and therefore, cannot bind the Employer to JCB or JAB
processes. Bricklayers (W.R. Weis), 336 NLRB 699, 700
(2001).9
Because we find that there are competing claims for
the work, there is reasonable cause to believe that Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and there is no agreed-
on method to voluntarily resolve the dispute, we find that
the dispute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirma-
tive award of disputed work after considering various
factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1212 (Co-
lumbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The Board
has held that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute
is an act of judgment based on common sense and ex-
perience, reached by balancing the factors involved in a
particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones
Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the de-
termination of this dispute.
1. Certifications and collective-
bargaining agreements
The parties stipulated that there are no Board orders or
certifications determining the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees performing the work in dis-
pute. The Employer has been signatory for more than 10
years to consent agreements binding it to the terms of the
collective-bargaining agreement between the Northern
Illinois Mason Employers Council (NIMEC) and Illinois
Bricklayers District Council No. 1, effective from June 1

9 We therefore deny the Iron Workers’ motion to quash the notice of
hearing.
through May 31, 2004.10 Article 10.1H of that agree-
ment indicates, in pertinent part, that work covered by
the agreement includes:

[A]ll work assignments in the pre-assembly and com-
plete installation of all exterior and interior artificial
and natural masonry products of any size or dimension
whether set individually or in pre-assembled panels
which may have metal or concrete backing, whether set
with cement mortar, high strength adhesives, or secured
by bolting or welding to plates set in all types of con-
crete or attached to steel frame structures, whether set
by hand or with any type of mechanical systems . . . .
Pre-assembly work assignments shall include, but not
be limited to, the preparations of steel frames or precast
concrete back up panels, the drilling of holes, cutting,
fitting, and fastening of artificial and natural masonry
product units to steel frames or back up precast by
bolts, clip anchors, pins, including any welding . . . .
Installation work assignments shall include but not be
limited to, unloading, selecting, or shaking out of artifi-
cial and natural masonry products for erection, hooking
on, signaling, laying out, cutting, fitting, bedding, land-
ing, setting, leveling, plumbing, aligning, anchoring,
installation of any steel clips, relief or support angles,
as well as the installation of metal grid or strut stone
supports (including bolting and/or welding . . . . For
those Employers which have historically done per-
formed work as described in this paragraph and have
done so with composite crews of bricklayers and other
employees, such composite crews may continue to be
used in the same manner as previously but all such
work shall be under the supervision of a bricklayer.

Thus, with the exception of crane assembly and disassem-
bly, the NIMEC-Bricklayers agreement explicitly encom-
passes the disputed work.
Although various Iron Workers documents arguably
cover work of the type in issue, the Employer terminated
its collective-bargaining agreement with Iron Workers,
effective May 31, 1997. With the exception of the pro-
ject-only agreements discussed above, which do not ob-
ligate the Employer at any other sites, the Employer is
not signatory to or bound by any collective-bargaining
agreement with the Iron Workers. Accordingly, this fac-
tor favors an award of the disputed work to employees
represented by the Bricklayers.
2. Company preference and past practice
The Employer assigned the precast erection and crane
assembling and dismantling work at the site of this dis-
10 District 1 includes Bricklayers Local 20.
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 1 (ADVANCE CAST STONE CO.) 5
pute to its employees who are represented by the Brick-
layers and prefers that they continue to perform this
work. With the exception of the construction projects
described above, at which the Employer capitulated to
pressure brought by the Iron Workers, the Employer has
assigned the disputed work to Bricklayers on 30 to 40
projects since 1997. The Employer’s preference and 4-
year uncoerced past practice support an award of the
disputed work to employees represented by the Bricklay-
ers.
3. Area and industry practice
The Employer submitted letters from numerous em-
ployers in the Chicago area and elsewhere indicating that
they customarily use bricklayers to perform work of the
kind disputed here. Similarly, the Iron Workers submit-
ted letters from various employers in the Chicago area
and around the United States who stated they used iron
workers or composite crews to perform precast erection
work. This factor does not favor either group of employ-
ees.
4. Relative skills and training
The record establishes that both Unions offer training
in blueprint reading, precast panel erection, and related
welding courses for the employees they represent. We
find that this factor does not favor an award of the work
to either group of employees.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employer and the Bricklayers assert that using
Bricklayers to perform the disputed work is more eco-
nomical and efficient than using a composite crew of
iron workers and bricklayers because bricklayers can do
the entire job from start to finish. They point out that
with a composite crew, bricklayers would be idle while
iron workers perform welding tasks, and that iron work-
ers would then be idle while bricklayers actually position
and secure the precast panels, even though both sets of
employees would be on the clock. See W.R. Weis, supra.
The Employer and the Bricklayers also contend that
bricklayers are proficient at patching “spalls” and other-
wise repairing panels that become damaged during the
installation process.11 They assert that bricklayers are
better at dealing with color variances in the precast pan-
els and matching them in the course of installation. The
Employer argues that it may have to lay off some of its
regular employees (bricklayers) in order to bring iron
workers onto its crew. Further, the Employer asserts that

11 Spalls are chips or holes in damaged panels.
insurance, wages, overtime, and showup time are less
costly for bricklayers than for iron workers.12
Although the Iron Workers also presented numerous
letters from employers who employed Iron Workers that
indicated iron workers generally were efficient and eco-
nomical, it does not dispute the Employer’s and the
Bricklayers’ contentions stated above. Accordingly, we
find that this factor favors awarding the disputed work to
employees represented by the Bricklayers.
6. Joint Board determinations
As a result of grievance and arbitration proceedings
invoked by the Iron Workers, Joint Board decisions is-
sued in 1999 and 2001 directed that precast installation
work be performed by composite crews of bricklayers
and iron workers.13 As indicated above, however, the
Employer was not a party to an agreement that provided
for the submission of disputes to the Joint Boards.
Moreover, the Joint Board decisions do not set forth an
underlying rationale, and they are expressly limited to
the job in issue. Therefore, the Employer is not bound
by the decisions, and we find that they are irrelevant.14
Hence, this factor does not favor an award to either group
of employees.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude
that employees represented by the Bricklayers are enti-
tled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this con-
clusion relying on the Employer’s collective-bargaining
agreement with the Bricklayers, Employer preference
and past practice, and economy and efficiency of opera-
tions. In making this determination, we are awarding the
work to employees represented by the Bricklayers, not to
that Union or its members.15
12 While the Board has held that wage differentials do not constitute
a proper basis for awarding disputed work, other economic considera-
tions such as guaranteed hours (showup pay) may appropriately be
weighed. Painters Local 91 (Frank M. Burson), 265 NLRB 1685, 1687
(1982); Laborers Local 118 (D. H. Johnson Co.), 262 NLRB 1147,
1150 (1982).
13 The Iron Workers submitted several other Joints Board determina-
tions dating to 1977, which do not involve the Employer and which
award precast panel installation to composite crews based on the 1954
and 1962 agreements between the Iron Workers and Bricklayers Inter-
national Unions.
14 Operating Engineers Local 318 (Kenneth E. Foeste), 322 NLRB
709, 714 (1996) (no rationale for arbitration decision); J.P. Patti Co.,
supra, 332 NLRB 830, 833 (2000) (no evidence joint board considered
10(k) factors).
15 Our award is not intended to take away any crane assembly or
dismantling work normally performed by the Operating Engineers
pursuant to that Union’s collective-bargaining agreement with the
Employer. Indeed, art. 10.1H of the NIMEC-Bricklayers District
Council No. 1 agreement, quoted above, allows the Employer to con-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6
Scope of the award
The Board customarily limits its determinations to the
particular controversy that gave rise to the 10(k) proceed-
ing. Here, however, the Employer and the Bricklayers
have requested that the Board issue an award that en-
compasses not only the Nine North Parkway jobsite, but
the entire geographic area where the Employer does
business and the jurisdictions of the competing unions
coincide. We find merit in their request.
Where the evidence indicates that a jurisdictional dis-
pute is likely to recur, the Board will issue an area award.
Iron Workers Local 1 (Fabcon), 311 NLRB 87, 92
(1993). The evidence indicates that this dispute is likely
to recur.
As we have found, the Iron Workers picketed three
jobsites at which the Employer was performing work of
the type in dispute here, threatened to picket another job-
site, and filed three grievances or arbitration requests to
obtain the work—all within a period of 3 years. The Iron
Workers’ conduct resulted in delays due to shutdowns,
increased work for the Employer to avoid charge backs,
and the possibility of a loss of customers. Moreover, a
major percentage of the Employer’s precast installation
business is performed in the Chicago area, and the Iron
Workers have previously engaged in similar conduct in
the Chicago area with an object of forcing other employ-
ers to assign precast erection work to its members. See
Iron Workers Local 1 (Fabcon), supra. Given this his-
tory of conduct that arguably violates Section 8(b)(4), we
find it likely that the Iron Workers will continue to claim
the work in dispute and to engage in similar conduct
against the employer as a means of obtaining it.
In sum, we find that work of the kind in dispute has
been a continuous source of controversy involving the
Employer in the Chicago area, that the controversy is
likely to recur, and that the Iron Workers has a proclivity

tinue its historical practice of using bricklayers and operating engineers
to assemble and dismantle cranes.
to engage in unlawful conduct as a means of obtaining
the work. Based on all of the foregoing, we find that a
broad award should issue.16
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow-
ing Determination of Dispute.
1. Employees of Advance Cast Stone Co., Inc. repre-
sented by Brick and Stone Masons Local 20, Lake
County Illinois, affiliated with International Union of
Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, AFL–CIO are enti-
tled to perform the assembling and dismantling of erec-
tion cranes and the erection of precast architectural mate-
rials within the territorial jurisdiction of Bridge, Struc-
tural and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local No. 1 of the
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Orna-
mental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, AFL–CIO.
2. Bridge, Structural, and Reinforcing Iron Workers
Local No. 1 of the International Association of Bridge,
Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers,
AFL–CIO is not entitled by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force Advance Cast Stone Co.,
Inc. to assign the dispute work to employees represented
by it.
3. Within 10 days from this date, Bridge, Structural,
and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local No. 1 of the Interna-
tional Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and
Reinforcing Iron Workers, AFL–CIO shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 13 in writing whether it
will refrain from forcing the Employer, by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the disputed
work in a manner inconsistent with this determination.
16 Cf. Bricklayers (W.R. Weis), supra. There, the Iron Workers
claimed similar work that the employer had assigned to Bricklayers.
The Iron Workers submitted a grievance to the JCB which awarded it
the work. The Bricklayers then threatened to picket if the work was
reassigned. The Board declined to issue an area award only because
the Bricklayers, which represented the employees to whom the work
was being awarded and to whom the employer contemplated continuing
to assign the work, was the charged party. Id. at 702.