Iron Workers Local 167

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 116 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Iron Workers Local Union No. 167, International
Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO and Nurre Glass Co. and
Glaziers & Glass Workers Local Union No. 242, of
the International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied
Trades, AFL-CIO. Cases 26-CD-94 and
26-CD-95
November 7, 1972
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF,
DISPUTE
and other materials directly from sources outside the
State of Tennessee valued in excess of $50,000.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Iron
Workers and Local 242 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges by Nurre Glass Co., herein called the
Employer, and Glaziers & Glass Workers Local
Union No. 242, of the International Brotherhood of
Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, herein called
Local 242, alleging that Iron Workers Local Union
No. 167, International Association of Bridge, Struc-
tural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO,
herein called Iron Workers, had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The charges allege, in
substance, that the' Iron Workers, by encouraging
and/or engaging in strikes and picketing, violated the
Act in that one of the purposes of such conduct was
to force the Employer to assign certain work to its
members rather than to members of Local 242.
Pursuant to an order consolidating cases and notice
of hearing, a hearing was held in Memphis, Tennes-
see, before Hearing Officer Thaddeus R. Sobieski on
August 15, 1972. All parties appeared and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence
bearing on the issues.
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 Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a Tennessee corporation with
principal office and place of business in Memphis,
Tennessee, is engaged in the installation of glass and
allied products. The parties stipulated, and we find,
that during the past year the Employer received glass
200 NLRB No. 27
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer has installed glass in the Memphis
area since 1961, and its predecessor, a national glass
company, had done such work since at least 1946.
Pursuant to a contract, to which it is signatory, by a
multiemployer group, Memphis Glass Contractors,
the Employer assigned to members of Local 242 the
installation of three revolving glass doors and
adjacent glass in the Commerce Tower at Commerce
Square in Memphis.
Local 242 members began work at the jobsite on
July 12, 1972. On July 19 the Iron Workers business
agent spoke to the Employer's president and claimed
that the revolving door installation was the work of
the ironworkers under the "Blue Book" agreement
between the Unions' Internationals. The Employer's
president referred to the contract with the Memphis
Glass Contractors and pointed out that the Employer
was not a signatory to the "Blue Book" agreement.
Shortly thereafter, the Employer discovered pick-
ets, bearing Iron Workers placards, at the jobsite.
The picketing continued for approximately half the
day, and work at the jobsite was halted. Although
there has been no resumption of picketing, the
installation of the doors and adjacent glass has not
been completed, and the Iron Workers continues to
claim the disputed work.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the installation and
erection of three revolving glass doors, adjacent glass
doors, and overhead glass in the Commerce Tower at
the Commerce Square jobsite located on Main Street,
Memphis, Tennessee.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that since 1961 it has
employed crews composed of glaziers who are
represented by Local 242 and that it is familiar with
their work methods and abilities. The assignment, the
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 167
Employer contends, was made pursuant to the
collective-bargaining agreement between Memphis
Glass Contractors, a multiemployer group of which
the Employer is a member, and Local 242 and is
further justified by the fact that the disputed work
can be more economically and efficiently performed
by experienced glaziers.
Local 242, in addition to relying upon the factors
cited by the Employer, contends that the nature of
the disputed work is such that, if any other craft were
to perform the work, a duplication of labor expenses
would result because it would still be necessary for
the glaziers to come in to preserve the glass against
unnecessary stress and strain.
The only ground upon which the Iron Workers
bases its claim to the disputed work is the "Blue
Book" agreement between the International Associa-
tion of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers and the Brotherhood of Painters, Decora-
tors and Paperhangers of America, which defines the
installation of revolving doors as the work of the Iron
Workers. Local 242 is not signatory to that agree-
ment.
D. Atlplicability of the Statute
The charges herein allege a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The facts show that the
Employer assigned the work to its employees, who
are members of or are represented by Local 242. The
Iron Workers demanded that the Employer take the
work away from members of Local 242 and assign it
to its members. In support of its demand, the Iron
Workers picketed and caused a work stoppage at the
jobsite. Accordingly, we find that there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
has been violated.
As the Employer is not a party to a collective-
bargaining agreement, with either of the labor
organizations here involved, by which it is bound by
the Joint Board procedures, it is unnecessary to
consider whether Local 242 and the Iron Workers are
bound by the Joint Board procedures.'
It is thus clear from the foregoing, and we find, that
at the time of the instant dispute there did not exist
any agreed-upon or approved method for the
voluntary adjustment of the dispute to which all
parties to the dispute were bound. Accordingly, the
matter is properly before the Board for determina-
tion under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
1 Local 189, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO (Kahoe Air Balance Co), 197 NLRB No. 17; Local 395, Bridge,
117
an affirmative award of the disputed work after
giving due consideration to all relevant factors
involved. The following factors are relevant in
making a determination of the dispute before us.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining
agreements
There is no Board certification determining the
bargaining representative for the employees assigned
to perform the work in dispute. Neither of the labor
organizations involved herein has been certified by
the Board as the collective-bargaining representative
for a unit of the Employer's employees.
At no material time herein has the Employer been
a party to a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Iron Workers. Since its establishment in 1961, the
Employer has been a party to successive collective-
bargaining agreements with Local 242 through
Memphis Glass Contractors, the multiemployer
group of which the Employer is a member. The
current agreement became effective March 18, 1971,
and extends through March 17, 1974. That agree-
ment does not recognize any outside agreements.
2. Employer's assignment and past practice
Pursuant to article I, section 2 of the agreement
between Local 242 and Memphis Glass Contractors,
the Employer assigned the work here involved to its
employees represented by Local 242.
Further, it is currently the area practice to assign
such work to employees represented by Local 242,
and the Employer has done so since 1964. Moreover,
the Employer's predecessor company had employed
glaziers represented by Local 242 since at least 1946.
3. Relative skills, efficiency, and economy of
operations
The Employer strongly favors an award to its
employees represented by Local 242 because of their
experience in performing the disputed work and the
resulting efficiency and economy of operations.
Glaziers represented by Local 242 have installed
revolving glass doors similar to those involved herein
since at least 1964. Moreover, most of these glaziers
have had 20 or 30 years' experience in the installation
of glass and allied products, while there is no
evidence that members of the Iron Workers have any
experience in this field. Thus, while the skills
required are such that ironworkers could be trained
to perform the work, the use of experienced glaziers
provided by Local 242 reduces the number of crew
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Telander Bros.
Contractors, Inc.), 196 NLRB No. 19.
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
members necessary, the time required to perform the
work, and, therefore, the overall cost of operation.
Additionally, the nature of the disputed work is
such that, if the Employer were required to hire
ironworkers to perform the work, a duplication of
labor expenses would result because it would still be
necessary for the glaziers to come in to preserve the
glass against unnecessary stress and strain.
CONCLUSION
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and after
full consideration of all of the relevant factors, in
particular the contractual relationship between the
Employer and Local 242, the Employer's practice
and that of similar employers in the area, and the
experience of members of Local 242 in performing
the disputed work and the resulting efficiency and
economy of operations, we conclude that the
employees of the Employer who are represented by
Local 242 are entitled to the work in question, and
we shall determine the dispute in their favor. In
making this determination, we award the work to the
employees of the Employer who are represented by
Local 242 but not to that Union or its members.
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 Dis-
pute.
1. Employees employed by Nurre Glass Co., who
are represented by Glaziers & Glass Workers Local
Union No. 242, of the International Brotherhood of
Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, are entitled to
perform the work in dispute which involves installa-
tion and erection of three revolving glass doors,
adjacent glass doors, and overhead glass in the
Commerce Tower, at the jobsite located at the
Commerce Square on Main Street, Memphis, Ten-
nessee.
2. Iron Workers Local Union No. 167, Interna-
tional Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to
force or require Nurre Glass Co., Memphis, Tennes-
see, to assign the above work to ironworkers
represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute, Iron Workers Local
Union No. 167, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO,
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring Nurre Glass Co., by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the work in dispute in a
manner inconsistent with the above determination.