Iron Workers Local 433, International Association Of Bridge, Structural And Ornamental Iron Workers, Afl-Cio

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1985

277 N.L.R.B. 670 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Iron Workers Local 433, International Association
of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers , AFL-CIO and Crescent Corporation.
Case 21-CD-541
22 November 1985
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed 29 May 1985 by the Employer, alleging that
the Respondent , Iron Workers Local 433, Interna-
tional Association of Bridge , Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Iron Workers
Local 433), violated Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act by engaging in pro-
scribed activity with an object of forcing the Em-
ployer to assign certain work to employees it rep-
resents rather than to employees represented by
Glaziers, Architectural Metal & Glass Workers
Local Union No. 636 , International Brotherhood of
Painters and Allied Trades , AFL-CIO (Glaziers
Local 636). The hearing was held 29 and 30 July
and 13 August 1985 before Hearing Officer Marga-
ret H . Poskaitis.
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, a Delaware corporation, is en-
gaged in manufacturing curtain wall and window
wall at its Carpentersville, Illinois facility, where it
annually manufactures, sells, and ships goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to purchasers
outside the State of Illinois. The Employer installs
its curtain and window wall at sites located
throughout the United States. The parties stipulate,
and we find, that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act, and that Iron Workers Local 433 and
Glaziers Local 636 are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The Employer is a construction subcontractor
that specializes in fabricating curtain wall and
window wall and installing it on high-rise commer-
cial buildings, including several in southern Califor-
nia.
"Curtain wall" or "window wall" describes cer-
tain panels used to create exterior building facades.
Although curtain and window wall panels may be
made of porcelain, marble, or other like materials,
the disputed work involves only panels made of
glass. These panels may be installed and inter-
locked ("stacked") to create continuous vertical or
horizontal windows. They may also be stacked
both vertically and horizontally so that the build-
ing's entire exterior facade, or a substantial portion
of it, is glass.I
The Employer is a party to a national collective-
bargaining agreement with the Iron Workers Inter-
national Association, an agreement with the Cali-
fornia and Vicinity Iron Workers District Council,
and an independent agreement with Iron Workers
Local 433. Under the national agreement, the Em-
ployer agreed to employ journeymen ironworkers
for work within the Iron Workers' jurisdiction
through hiring halls operated by Iron Workers
local unions. The Employer's independent agree-
ment with Local 433 incorporates the district coun-
cil agreement. Section 3(D) of the district council
agreement states the Union's, jurisdiction includes:
All work in connection with field fabrication
and/or erection of structural, ornamental and
reinforcing steel, including but not limited to
.. . erection of all curtain wall and window
wall . . . [and] installation of metal window
stools and sills.
Section 24(Q) states in pertinent part:
Iron Workers Required on Window Wall or
Curtain Wall Erection-All installation of
window wall or curtain wall shall be per-
formed by workmen covered by this Agree-
ment.
The parties' latest agreement, effective 1 July 1983
through 30 June 1986, was the first to contain the
latter provision.
The Employer is also a party to a collective-bar-
gaining agreement with Glaziers Local 636 which
states the Union's jurisdiction includes:
The installation of all extruded rolled or fabri-
cated metals or any materials that replace same
. . . including those in any or all of the build-
i Iron Workers Local 433 Financial Secretary-Treasurer and Business
Manager Joe Ward stated that the panels are called "curtain wall" when
they are attached to the building outside the floor edge, and "window
wall" when attached inside the floor edge The Employer, however, dis-
tinguishes between the two differently The Employer uses "window
wall" to mean only panels that are stacked either vertically or horizontal-
ly, but not both When the panels are to be installed both horizontally
and vertically, the Employer calls those panels "curtain wall "
277 NLRB No. 77
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 433 (CRESCENT CORP.)
ings related to store front and window wall
and curtain wall construction.
The agreement also contains a grievance and arbi-
tration provision covering "any dispute . . . con-
cerning the application or interpretation of any
terra or condition of this Agreement." Grievances
may be referred to a "Joint Conference Commit-
tee" whose decision is final and binding.
Curtain or window wall is conventionally in-
stalled by attaching metal frames, or "sills" and
"heads," to a building and then installing glass
panels, or "lights," into the frames. This type of
work accounts for approximately 60 percent of the
Employer's work and the Employer always assigns
installing the sills and heads to ironworkers. The
Employer's policy is to assign installing the glass
lights in accordance with area practice, assigning
glaziers where the Iron 'Workers and Glaziers local
unions have agreed that glaziers should do the
work.2
The remaining 40 percent of the Employer's cur-
tain and window wall work is with "pre-glazed"
panels. Glass lights are installed into pre-glazed
unit frames and the frames are then attached to a
building with the lights installed. Except for the
Employer's work at the 53rd at Third office build-
ing in New York City, the Employer has always
assigned pre-glazed unit installation to ironwork-
ers.3 At 53rd at Third, the Employer assigned the
work to composite crews of one glazier for each
group of eight ironworkers pursuant to an agree-
ment between Iron Workers and Glaziers local
unions.
Glaziers Local 636 presented evidence that nu-
merous glass companies that glaze small buildings
(generally under 20 stories), in addition to perform-
ing other glass work, employ glaziers and not iron-
workers to install pre-glazed curtain wall and
window wall. These glass companies generally
employ a regular complement of glaziers and do
not employ ironworkers, nor do they generally
have collective-bargaining agreements with Iron
Workers local unions. Glaziers Business Represent-
ative Able Macias testified, however, that on at
least two buildings, the 20-story Promenade
Towers and a 28-story building at 400 South Hope,
2 At the conventionally glazed Olympic Butler office building in Los
Angeles, the Employer, contrary to its usual policy, assigned ironworkers
rather than glaziers to install glass lights Glaziers Local 636 filed a griev-
ance pursuant to its contract and a joint conference committee on 1
August 1983 found the Employer "guilty" of violating the contract Ac-
cording to a transcript of the committee' s meeting , Employer Vice Presi-
dent Wayne J Bergmann admitted glaziers should have been assigned the
glazing and promised to assign them to do so in the future at othei sites
a The buildings the Employer's vice president identified are all located
in Chicago They include Boulevard Towers North and South, Doral
Plaza , Warwick Apartments, Hyatt Regency Hotel, 303 East Walker, and
City of Chicago
671
both in Los Angeles, the glazing contractor used a
composite crew of glaziers and ironworkers to in-
stall pre-glazed curtain or window wall. Iron
Workers Local 433 Business Manager Joe Ward
named several contractors who assigned pre-glazed
curtain or window wall installation exclusively to
ironworkers and named numerous buildings within
the Local's jurisdiction at which. ironworkers did
the installing.4
Whether the frames are glazed or unglazed, at-
taching them to the building involves substantially
the same tasks. An anchor is bolted into the build-
ing's concrete slab and a bolting clip is attached to
both the frame and the anchor to attach the unit to
the building.
Each unit must be vertically plumb and thus the
bolting clips allow the unit to be adjusted to some
extent toward or away from the building. In some
cases, the panel must be adjusted farther away or
toward the building than the standard bolting clip
allows. When this occurs, a new clip must be
made. The new clip is generally made at the jobsite
and is made using welding equipment, cutting
torches, saws, drills, and like tools and equipment.
Donald Stobridge, former Olson Glass Company
glazing superintendent, testified that, of his 20- to
35-glazier crews that installed pre-glazed curtain
wall at the Arco Center building, Long Beach,
California, only two or three glaziers could weld.
Similarly, former Crone Glass Company General
Foreman Michael Nimigekn testified that, among
the ironworker and glazier composite crews that
glazed the conventionally glazed Sheraton Premier
Hotel, only the ironworkers were certified welders,
the glaziers were not.
Both the Iron Workers and the Glaziers operate
apprenticeship or training programs. Joe Ward,
who is Iron Workers Local 433's joint apprentice-
ship committee chairman , as well as its financial
secretary-treasurer and business manager, testified
that one-sixth of the Iron Workers' 3-year appren-
ticeship program is devoted to ornamental iron-
work, including window wall layout and installa-
tion. Peter Verkerke, former Glaziers Local 636
business manager and joint apprenticeship trust sec-
4 Among the southern California contractors Ward identified is Tom
Benson Industries, which employed ironworkers to install pre-glazed
units on a 26-story building in Santa Monica He also said Jack Fields
Installation used ironworkers for installing pre-glazed units on the 45-
story Wells Fargo building, and on a 28-story building in Woodland
Hills
Other buildings in southern California Ward identified as having had
pre-glazed curtain or window wall installed exclusively by ironworkers
include a Hughes-project building in El Segundo ; Universal Plaza in Uni-
versal City, Ventura County Jail in Ventura County, Long Beach City
Hall in Long Beach, Arco Twin Towers in Los Angeles, and a Flour
City-project building in Irvine. Ward did not state the number of stories
these buildings have
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
retary, testified that the Glaziers' 4-year training
program taught curtain and window wall installa-
tion. Neither man, however, stated whether his
union's program taught only its craft's role in con-
ventional curtain and window wall installation, or
whether the program provided training in installing
pre-glazed curtain and window wall as well.
In 1984, the Employer began installing pre-
glazed curtain or window wall at the California
Plaza building, 300 South Grand Street, Los Ange-
les, California, and at a building located at 5916
Owensmouth, Woodland Hills, California (Wood-
land Hills building). These are the only sites in
southern California at which the Employer has
used pre-glazed panels. The Employer assigned the
installation work to employees represented by Iron
Workers Local 433 and confirmed the assignments
in writing on 6 June and 11 September 1984, re-
spectively.
The Employer was also responsible for attaching
a "store front" window exterior facade to the
ground floor of the Woodland Hills building. The
store front was not pre-glazed; it was instead to be
installed by the conventional method. The Employ-
er originally subcontracted the work to another
company. After learning the company employed
nonunion workers and lacked the necessary license
to do the work, the Employer assigned the work to
its own ironworkers.
Glaziers Local 636 believed the Employer's
having assigned ironworkers rather than glaziers to
the work at the California Plaza building violated
its collective-bargaining agreement with the Em-
ployer. Pursuant to the contract, the Union re-
ferred a grievance to a joint conference committee.
The joint conference committee mailed meeting no-
tices to the Employer at its Illinois address. The
Employer, however, did not attend the scheduled
meetings. On 18 December 1984 the committee
found the Employer "guilty" of violating its con-
tract with Glaziers Local 636 by its California
Plaza work assignment and awarded glaziers mone-
tary damages. On 7 May 1985 Glaziers Local 636
filed suit in Federal district court to confirm the
award.
Glaziers Local 636 also referred a grievance to
the joint conference committee concerning the Em-
ployer's work assignment at the Woodland Hills
building. The committee again mailed a meeting
notice to the Employer's Illinois address and the
Employer again did not attend the meeting. On 22
May 1985 the committee found the Employer
"guilty" of violating its contract with the Glaziers
by its Woodland Hills work assignment and again
awarded glaziers monetary damages.
Iron Workers Local 433 Business Manager Ward
testified that Employer Vice President Bergmann
approached him in May 1985 about the Glaziers'
claims for the work at the California Plaza and
Woodland Hills buildings. Bergmann asked Ward
"how to approach it and what effect it would have
on [Ward]" if the Employer reassigned the work to
Glaziers-represented employees. According to
Ward, he told Bergmann he would do
"[e]verything short of breaking [Bergmann's] legs."
He also testified he told Bergmann he would "take
whatever job action is necessary to keep control of
the work in question."
On 29 May 1985 Employer Attorney Richard
W. Kopenhefer telephoned Iron Workers Local
433 Attorney Victor J. Van Bourg about Glaziers
Local 636's claims. According to Kopenhefer, Van
Bourg stated, "You can have your magic words"
and "indicated" Iron Workers Local 433 would file
a grievance and engage in a job action to retain the
work. Kopenhefer confirmed the conversation by a
letter dated that same day and stated the disputed
work involved "preglazed window units." On 10
June 1985 Van Bourg responded stating the 29
May letter "accurately sets forth our conversa-
tion." Van Bourg also stated, "Local 433 will exer-
cise all options legally available to them."
Employer Vice President Bergmann testified that
the Employer is seeking additional work in south-
ern California and, should the Employer obtain
contracts to install pre-glazed curtain or window
wall, Bergmann would assign that work to iron-
workers represented by Iron Workers Local 433.
Glaziers Local 636 Financial Reporting Secretary
Sam Porter testified that he would "insist" that the
Employer assign its future curtain or window wall
installation to Glaziers.
B. Work in Dispute
The parties stipulated that the work in dispute
includes at least installing pre-glazed curtain wall
or window wall at the Employer's projects at the
California Plaza building, 300 South Grand Street,
Los Angeles, California, and at a building located
at 5916 Owensmouth, Woodland Hills, California.
At the hearing, Glaziers Local 636 sought to in-
clude, as part of the disputed, work storefront
window installation at the Woodland Hills build-
ing. As noted, the storefront windows are conven-
tionally glazed, not pre-glazed. The parties be-
lieved until the hearing that only pre-glazed unit
installation was disputed and there is no evidence
of a threat with respect to the Employer's store-
front installation work assignment. Accordingly,
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 433 (CRESCENT CORP)
we shall limit our determination to pre-glazed cur-
tain or window wall installation.5
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends there is reasonable cause
to believe Iron Workers Local 433 violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by Ward's May 1985 threat
to Vice President Bergmann that Ward would
"take whatever job action is necessary to keep con-
trol of the work in question." The Employer also
relies on Iron Workers Attorney Van Bourg's tele-,
phone threat to Employer Attorney Kopenhefer on
29 May, and Van Bourg's 10 June letter which
stated, "Local 433 will exercise all options legally
available to them." Iron Workers Local 433 also
relies on Ward's threat to do "[e]verything short of
breaking [Bergmann 's] legs."
Both the Employer and Iron Workers Local 433
contend the Iron Workers' collective-bargaining
agreement with the Employer favors awarding the
disputed work to ironworkers because the agree-
ment grants that Union jurisdiction over "erection
of all curtain wall and window wall" and states,
"All installation of window wall or curtain wall
shall be performed by [ironworkers]." They also
argue that the Employer's preference for awarding
the work to ironworkers, its past practice, and the
relative skills of ironworkers and glaziers also favor
awarding the work to ironworkers. They contend
that area practice does not support an award to
glaziers because the employers who award similar
work to glaziers are small "'glass houses" that work
on low-rise buildings only and not, like the Em-
ployer, construction subcontractors who work on
high-rise buildings. The Employer also argues that
area practice favors awarding the work to iron-
workers and that concern for the economy and ef-
ficiency of its operations does not favor awarding
the work to glaziers. Both the Employer and Iron
Workers Local 433 argue that the Board should
issue a broad order, covering all the Employer's
work, wherever located, in addition to the work
now disputed.
Glaziers Local 636 agrees there is reasonable
cause to believe Iron Workers Local 433 violated
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. It contends, howev-
er, that its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Employer favors awarding the work to glaziers be-
cause the agreement states the Union's jurisdiction
includes "[t]he installation of all extruded, rolled,
or fabricated metals . . . including those in any or
s Cf Teamsters Local 807 (American Bank Note Co), 241 NLRB 811
(1979) (disputed work considered for determination limited to that de-
scribed in notice of hearing absent evidence of notice to parties that dis-
pute was broader, and absent full opportunity to litigate broader work
dispute issues)
673
all of the buildings related to store front and
window wall and curtain wall construction." It
also argues that the Employer's past practice sup-
ports awarding the work to a composite crew of
ironworkers and glaziers and that area practice
supports awarding the work to glaziers. It contends
concern for the economy and efficiency of the Em-
ployer's operation favors awarding the work to
glaziers in part because ironworkers have broken
glass at other of the Employer's operations. It fur-
ther contends that glaziers are better skilled and
that the Employer's preference is not controlling.
It argues against a broad order, contending there is
no evidence Iron Workers Local 433 will engage in
further unlawful conduct and that its filing griev-
ances to obtain the disputed work is not unlawful.
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 there is reasonable cause to
believe Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and
that the parties have not agreed on a method to
voluntarily adjust the dispute.
Iron- Workers Local 433 Business Manager
Ward's threat to "take whatever job action is nec-
essary to keep control of the work in question"
provides reasonable cause to believe Section
8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.6 The parties stipulat-
ed that they have not agreed on a method to vol-
untarily adjust this dispute.
Accordingly, we find the dispute is properly
before the Board for determination.
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 1BEW
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-
6 Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Local One-P (Sterling-Regal), 169
NLRB 606, 607 (1968), Stage Employees IATSE Local 659 (Westinghouse
Broadcasting), 222 NLRB 1004, 1005 (1976)
We do not rely on Iron Workers Local 433 Attorney Van Bourg's 29
May 1985 threat, in a telephone conversation with Employer Attorney
Kopenhefer, "indicating" the Union would engage in a job action to
retain the disputed work According to Kopenhefer, Van Bourg initially
said, "You can have your magic words " Thus, in context, the threat was
clearly intended only as a sham to invoke the Board's authority to deter-
mine the dispute
Van Bourg's 10 June 1985 letter, confirming the Employer's version of
the 28 May conversation, also does not constitute an unlawful threat that
would provide the Board with authority to determine this dispute, even if
considered independently of the 29 May telephone conversation That
letter threatened only that Iron Workers Local 433 would "exercise all
options legally available to them " See Brockton Newspaper Guild (Enter-
prise Publishing), 275 NLRB 135, 136 (1985)
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ancing the factors involved in a particular case.
Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction),
135 NLRB 1402, 1410-1411 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of this dispute.
1. Collective-bargaining agreements
Iron Workers Local 433's collective-bargaining
agreement clearly gives it a contractual claim to
the work for the employees it represents because
the contract includes "erection of all curtain and
window wall" within the Union's jurisdiction and
affirmatively states: "All installation of window
wall or curtain wall shall be performed by [iron-
workers]." Glaziers Local 636, however, also has a
contractual claim to the work for its employees
based on that part of its contract that gives it juris-
diction over installing metal "in any or all of the
buildings related to store front and window wall
and curtain wall construction."
We thus find that the Unions' collective-bargain-
ing agreements do not support awarding the disput-
ed work to either group of employees.
2. Employer preference and past practice
The Employer prefers that ironworkers perform
the disputed work and, as noted, the Employer has
assigned installing pre-glazed curtain or window
wall to ironworkers at all its projects except the
53rd at Third office building in New York City. At
that site, Iron Workers and Glaziers local unions
had an agreement requiring composite ironworker
and glazier crews and the Employer respected the
agreement. No such agreement exists here.
Accordingly, the Employer's preference and past
practice supports awarding the disputed work to
ironworkers.
3. Area and industry practice
As noted, Glaziers Local 636 presented evidence
indicating that glass companies that glaze buildings
less than 20 stories, in addition to performing other
glass services, assign their regular complement of
glaziers to install pre-glazed curtain wall and
window wall. The Employer, however, is a high-
rise construction subcontractor and not a glass
company that performs other glass services and it
does not maintain a regular complement of glaziers.
Glaziers Local 636's evidence thus does not persua-
sively establish an industry practice for employers
with operations similar to that of the Employer
here.
The other evidence of area and industry practice
is not conclusive, Glaziers Business Representative
Able Macias conceded that for installing pre-glazed
curtain or window wall on at least two southern
California buildings 20 stories or higher, the glaz-
ing contractor employed a composite crew of iron-
workers and glaziers, rather than just glaziers. Iron
Workers Business Manager Ward named numerous
employers within the Union's jurisdiction who as-
signed exclusively ironworkers to do the installing.
We thus find that neither area nor industry prac-
tice favors awarding the disputed work to one
group of employees over the other.
4. Relative skills
That both ironworkers and glaziers install pre-
glazed curtain or window wall at certain jobsites
for various employers demonstrates clearly that
both groups are generally capable. Ironworkers,
however, are certified welders, while glaziers may
or may not be. As noted, the Employer needs certi-
fied welders to make new bolting clips when the
standard clip will not allow enough adjustment
toward or away from the building to make the cur-
tain or window wall unit vertically plumb.
This factor thus favors awarding the disputed
work to ironworkers rather than glaziers.?
5. Economy and efficiency of operation
The evidence presented does not suggest that an
award to one group would be more economical or
lead to greater efficiency than an award to the
other. Accordingly, we find that concern for the
economy and efficiency of the Employer's oper-
ation does not favor awarding the disputed work to
either group of employees.
Conclusion
After considering all the relevant factors, we
conclude that employees represented by Iron
Workers Local 433 are entitled to perform the
work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying
on the Employer's preference and past practice,
and the fact that ironworkers are certified welders.
7 Glaziers Local 636 and the Employer presented evidence intended to
discredit each craft's work quality Glaziers Local 636, for example, pre-
sented photographs showing that 5 to 9 of the Woodland Hills building's
1200 to 1300 ironworker-installed curtain or window wall lights were
cracked Employer Vice President Bergmann testified, however, that 2 to
3 percent breakage is normal He also testified that lights may break in
shipping, or from stress after they are installed, as well as from poor in-
stallation Similarly, Crone Glass General Foreman Michael Nimigekn
testified for Glaziers Local 636 that ironworkers he employed improperly
installed bolting clips at one of his projects. On cross-examination, how-
ever, he conceded that a general foreman made the error Bergmann tes-
tified glaziers delayed completing the Employer's conventionally glazed
Alameda Pass project and increased costs by breaking too many lights
The Employer's glazier foreman at that time, Rick Rogers, testified, how-
ever, that he instructed the glaziers to insert vinyl into the curtain or
window wall frames with baseball bats because the holes for the vinyl
were too small
We find these incidents to be isolated and innocuous and do not rely
on them in comparing the crafts' skills.
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 433 (CRESCENT CORP.)
In making this determination , we are awarding the
work , to employees represented by Iron Workers
Local 433, not to that Union or its members.
Scope of the Award
As noted, the Employer and Iron Workers Local
433 contend the determination should encompass
work at all the Employer's pre-glazed curtain or
window wall jobsites, wherever located. For the
Board to issue a broad, areawide award, there must
be evidence that the disputed work has been a con-
tinuing source of controversy in the relevant geo-
graphic area and that similar disputes are likely to
recur. There also must be evidence demonstrating
that the charged party has a proclivity to engage in
unlawful conduct to obtain work similar to the dis-
puted work.8
The evidence demonstrates that assigning work
similar to the disputed work will likely continue to
be controversial, at least in southern California, as
the Employer intends to seek additional work
there, intends to assign the disputed work to iron-
workers, and Glaziers Local 636 intends to "insist"
it be assigned instead to glaziers. The charged
party, Iron Workers Local 433, has not, however,
demonstrated a proclivity for unlawful threats by
its threats regarding the two assignments here.
8 Electrical Workers IBEW Local 104 (Standard Sign), 248 NLRB 1144,
1147-1148 ( 1980) (citing cases)
675
Also, while the dispute is likely to continue, the
evidence suggests no unlawful pressure will be ex-
erted to obtain or retain it. The Employer has
stated it will favor employees represented by the
only union that exerted unlawful pressure, Iron
Workers Local 433. Although Glaziers Local 636
intends to continue to insist that the Employer's
pre-glazed unit installation work be assigned to gla-
ziers, it has in the past pursued its claim lawfully,
filing grievances pursuant to a colorable contract
claim.9
Accordingly, our determination is limited to the
controversy that gave rise to this proceeding.10
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the
following Determination of Dispute.
Employees of Crescent Corporation represented
by Iron Workers Local 433, International Associa-
tion of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO are entitled to install pre-
glazed curtain wall or window wall at the Employ-
er's projects at the California Plaza building, 300
South Grand Street, Los Angeles , California, and
at a building located at 5916 Owensmouth, Wood-
land Hills , California.
9 See Sheet Metal Workers Local 49 (Los Alamos Constructors), 206
NLRB 473 , 475-477 (1973)
10 See Standard Sign Co, supra, 248 NLRB at 1148.