Iron Workers Local 118 (Valley Industrial)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1984

269 N.L.R.B. 915 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

IRON WORKERS LOCAL 118 (VALLEY INDUSTRIAL)
International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 118,
AFL-CIO and Franklin D. Chiado, a sole pro-
prietorship, d/b/a Valley Industrial Machine
Erectors and United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, Millwrights and Ma-
chine Erectors, Local No. 1827, AFL-CIO.
Case 32-CD-70
10 April 1984
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed on 4 November 1983 and an amended charge
was filed on 22 November 1983 by the Employer,
alleging that the Respondent, Iron Workers Local
118 (Iron Workers), 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
Carpenters Local 1827 (Millwrights). The hearing
was held 19 December 1983 before Hearing Officer
Barbara Luna.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings,
finding them free from prejudicial error. On the
entire record, the Board makes the following find-
ings.
1. JURISDICTION
The Employer, Franklin D. Chiado, a sole pro-
prietorship d/b/a Valley Industrial Machine Erec-
tors, is engaged in the installation of mechanical
equipment and contracted with Nielson, Vasko &
Earl (Nielson) to perform the disputed work. Niel-
son, a California corporation, is a construction con-
tractor with its principal office in Reno, Nevada,
where it annually purchases and receives goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from suppliers located outside the State of Nevada.
The parties stipulate, and we find, that Nielson is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Iron Workers
and Millwrights are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
Nielson awarded the Employer three subcon-
tracts for the installation of hangar doors and a 4-
269 NLRB No. 159
ton bridge crane at the helicopter hangar at the
Stead Aviation Support Facility in Reno, Nevada.
The Employer thereupon entered into a collective-
bargaining agreement with Millwrights. Three mill-
wrights and the Employer performed the work in
question, beginning on 24 October 1983 and ending
on 16 November 1983 except for some final adjust-
ments.
On 1 November 1983 Iron Workers Business
Agent Richard Ciesynski confronted Nielson Con-
struction Superintendent Bill Riales and stated that
they had a problem because millwrights were in-
stalling the hangar doors and bridge crane. Claim-
ing that millwrights had never installed such hang-
ars door, whereas ironworkers had, Ciesynski said
that if the Employer and his millwrights were not
off the job by 3:30 that afternoon, the following
day would be a different story. Riales responded
that the Employer had a contract to perform the
disputed work and that Nielson could not prevent
him from performing the work. For the next 5
working days, approximately six to eight ironwork-
ers picketed the jobsite. The employer continued to
perform the work and the picketing ceased after 8
November 1983.
B. Work in Dispute
The disputed work involves the layout, assem-
bly, and rigging of hangar doors and the installa-
tion of a 4-ton bridge crane.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the disputed work
should be awarded to employees represented by
the Millwrights because they are more qualified to
perform the precision aspects of the installation and
because it is more efficient and economical to
award the work in that manner.
Millwrights contends that employees it repre-
sents should be assigned the work because its mem-
bers are more skilled in installing mechanical equip-
ment.
Iron Workers did not participate in the proceed-
ings but has clearly taken the position by picketing
that employees it represents should be assigned the
work.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion of the 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) the parties have not agreed upon a
method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis-
pute. We find reasonable cause to believe that a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred based
915
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on Iron Workers' 5 days of picketing at Employ-
er's jobsite directed at obtaining the disputed work.
Further the record contains no evidence that an
agreed-upon method exists for the, voluntary ad-
justment of the dispute. Accordingly, we find that
the dispute is properly before the Board for deter-
mination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an af-
firmative award of disputed work after considering
various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW
Local 1212 (Columbia 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 experience, reached by bal-
ancing 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
determination of this dispute.
1. Collective-bargaining agreement
Upon receiving the contract to perform the dis-
puted work the Employer entered into a collective-
bargaining agreement with Millwrights which
covers that work. Thus Appendix B, paragraph (p)
of the Millwrights' contract defines its work to in-
clude among other things:
. . . the hoisting, rigging . . . moving . . .
aligning, erecting, assembling . . . and adjust-
ing of all machinery and equipment installed
. . .in buildings . . . [or] structures.
The Employer has no collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Iron Workers. Accordingly this factor
favors assignment to employees represented by the
Millwrights.
2. Employer preference and past practice
Employer has no past practice regarding assign-
ment of the disputed work. Its clear preference,
based on economy and efficiency, as discussed
below, supports awarding the work to employees
represented by the Millwrights.
3. Area and industry practice
Although iron workers and millwrights both
have installed similar equipment, there is no estab-
lished area practice of consistently awarding that
work to one group or the other.
4. Relative skills
The Employer and Millwrights' Business Agent
Dana Wiggins testified that both crafts were equal-
ly skilled in most of the installation tasks but that
millwrights were more skilled in installing and rig-
ging the line shafts and cable pulley systems
needed to operate the hangar doors. Accordingly
this factor supports awarding the work to employ-
ees represented by the Millwrights.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employer testified that assignment to em-
ployees represented by the Millwrights was more
economical and efficient for three reasons. First,
the Employer was able to perform the work with
four millwrights. In a grievance filed with Nielson
seeking the disputed work, Iron Workers claimed
that six of its members were entitled to the work
being performed by the four millwrights. The Em-
ployer further testified that use of millwrights was
more economical because the Employer would
have to supply ironworkers with tools, whereas
millwrights provided their own tools. Finally, the
Employer testified that even if it assigned the work
to ironworkers, he would nonetheless have to
employ millwrights to install the line shaft for the
rigging.
Accordingly it appears that this factor strongly
favors assignment to employees represented by the
Millwrights.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we
conclude that employees represented by the Mill-
wrights are entitled to perform the work in dispute.
We reach this conclusion relying on the collective-
bargaining agreement between Employer and Mill-
wrights, Employer preference, and economy and
efficiency of operations. In making this determina-
tion, we are awarding the work to employees rep-
resented by Mllwrights, not to that Union or its
members. The determination is limited to the con-
troversy that gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the
following Determination of Dispute.
1. Employees of Valley Industrial Machine Erec-
tors represented by United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, Millwrights and Ma-
chine Erectors, Local No. 1827, AFL-CIO, are en-
titled to perform the installation of hangar doors
and the 4-ton bridge crane at the Stead Aviation
Support Facility, Reno, Nevada.
2. International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 118,
AFL-CIO is not entitled by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force Valley In-
dustrial Machine Erectors to assign the disputed
work to employees represented by it.
916
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 118 (VALLEY INDUSTRIAL)
3. Within 10 days from this date, International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, Local No. 118, AFL-CIO, shall
notify the Regional Director for Region 32 in writ-
ing whether it will refrain from forcing the Em-
ployer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D),
to assign the disputed work in a manner inconsist-
ent with this determination.
917