Iron Workers Local 482 (Norment Glass)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1985

273 N.L.R.B. 1831 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

IRON WORKERS LOCAL 482 (NORMENT GLASS) 1831
International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No.
482, AFL-CIO and Norment Glass Company, a
Division of Norment Industries, Inc. and Gla-
ziers, Architectural Metal & Glass Workers
Local Union No. 1778, AFL-CIO. Case 23-
CD-442
6 February 1985
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed 23 August 1984 1 by the Employer, alleging
that the Respondent, International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
Local Union No. 482, AFL-CIO (the Iron Work-
ers) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National
Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed ac-
tivity with an object of forcing the Employer to
assign certain work to employees it represents
rather than to employees represented by Glaziers,
Architectural Metal & Glass Workers Local Union
No. 1778, AFL-CIO (the Glaziers). The hearing
was held 20 and 21 September before Hearing Offi-
cer Javier R. Gonzalez.
The National Labor Relations Board affirms the
hearing officer's rulings, finding them free from
prejudicial error. On the entire record, the Board
makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer, an Alabama corporation, is en-
gaged in subcontracting for glazing, curtain wall,
and window systems work. During the 12 months
preceding the hearing the Employer purchased and
shipped goods and materials to its Austin, Texas
job valued in excess of $50,000 directly from out-
side the State of Texas. The Employer has gross
revenues in excess of $500,000. The parties stipu-
late, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act and the Iron Workers and the Gla-
ziers are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
On 25 March 1983 general contractor Warrior
Constructors, Inc. (Warrior) subcontracted with
the Employer for entrance and window work at
William B. Travis State Office Building (Travis
1 All dates are m 1984 unless otherwise indicated.
Building) in Austin, Texas. In September 1983 Iron
Workers Business Manager D. A. Ragsdale tele-
phoned an employer representative in Montgom-
ery, Alabama, to request the assignment of metal
installation work on this project to Iron Workers-
represented employees.
In July, however, Norment assigned the work to
employees represented by the Glaziers. The Iron
Workers protested, and Iron Workers, Glaziers,
Employer, and Warrior representatives held several
meetings attempting to resolve the dispute. They
did not reach agreement. During a 24 July meeting
Ragsdale claimed the disputed work on behalf of
employees represented by the Iron Workers and
told the Employer's vice president and general
manager Pat Johnson that the Glaziers would do
the work "over his dead body." The Iron Workers
began picketing at the jobsite's main gate on 21
August, carrying signs reading, "Norment Indus-
tries has no agreement with the Iron Workers No.
482." After about 3 days the picketers moved to
the Employer's reserved gate. They picketed until
28 August. Numerous employees at the jobsite
ceased work.
B. Work in Dispute
The parties stipulated and we find that the dis-
puted work involves the installation of all alumi-
num entrances exceeding 125 square feet or 13 feet
high or wide, metal work in storefront fixed show
or display window units and entrance doors, instal-
lation of aluminum windows, bronze handrails, and
metal supports for glass handrails, and caulking as-
sociated with this work, including all aluminum
and steel support angles and clips, flashing and trim
at the William B. Travis State Office Building in
Austin, Texas.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends here is reasonable cause
to believe the Iron Workers violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act based on Ragsdale's 24 July
claim and threat followed by the jobsite picketing
and work cessation. It further asserts that the
Board should award the disputed work to employ-
ees represented by the Glaziers based on its collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the Glaziers, its
preference and past practice, and economy and ef-
ficiency of operations. The Employer also asserts
that no area or industry practice precludes an
award to Glaziers-represented employees, and that
they possess superior skills for performing the dis-
puted work.
The Iron Workers contends the Board should
award the work to employees it represents based
on a 1961 interunion agreement with the Glaziers
273 NLRB No. 219
1832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
providing that this type of work be assigned to its
members. The Iron Workers further asserts that the
Employer's past practice, economy and efficiency
of operations, and relative skills favor such an
award.
D. Applicability of the Statute
The Iron Workers does not dispute that Rags-
dale told the Employer's vice president and general
manager Johnson that Glaziers-represented em-
ployees would do the disputed work "over his
dead body," that the Iron Workers picketed at the
jobsite from 21 August to 28 August, or that nu-
merous employees at the jobsite refused to cross
the picket line.
Under these circumstances we find reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. No party contends that
there is an agreed method for voluntary adjustment
of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k)
of the Act. Accordingly, we find that 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 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. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
No party contends that the Board has certified
either of the Unions involved in this dispute as the
collective-bargaining representative for a unit of
the Employer's employees.
The Employer is a party to the Glaziers Interna-
tional's national agreement, and contends several of
the agreement's provisions cover the disputed
work. We disagree. Article II, section 2 of this
agreement describes work comparable to the dis-
puted work, but pertains only to the installation of
equipment and protective devices at detention fa-
cilities. 2 Article II, section 3 covers installation of
2 It states as follows
Section 2 Work covered by this Agreement shall include all work in
the installation of detention equipment necessary to contain inmates
or patients within a facility and the installation of necessary protec-
tive devices to make safe any facility from attempted penetration by
electronic equipment that is not comparable to the
disputed work.3
The Employer has no collective-bargaining
agreement with either Local involved in this dis-
pute.
The Employer maintains a permanent crew of
employees represented by Glaziers Local 432 at its
home office in Montgomery, Alabama, and is party
to a collective-bargaining agreement with that
local. The Employer claims that, because all the
permanent employees working on the Travis Build-
ing project are Local 432 members, the agreement
requires it to assign the disputed work to Glaziers-
represented employees. We find this unpersuasive,
however, as Glaziers Local 1778, the only Glaziers
local claiming the disputed work, is not a party to
that agreement.
Accordingly, this factor does not support an as-
signment of work to employees represented by
either Union.
2. Company preference and past practice
During the past 32 years the Employer has con-
sistently assigned metal installation work similar to
the disputed work to employees represented by
various Glaziers locals. As noted, the Employer
maintains a permanent crew of Glaziers Local 432
members in Montgomery, Alabama. Johnson testi-
fied that the Employer typically dispatches Local
432 members from Montgomery to its jobsites and
supplements that crew with employees represented
by the area Glaziers local. At the Travis Building,
the Employer employs a core group of Glaziers
force from without, including, but not necessarily limited thereto,
such as, the installation of architectural metal, glass, exterior and in-
terior panels, storefront metal and glass, curtain wall erection, orna-
mental and custom metals, such as doors, rails, enclosures, installa-
tion of ballistic frames, ballistic and security glass, ballistic steel
panels, hollow metal security doors, security windows, security
locks, hardware and devices, electrically operated consoles, security
pass-thru devices, security grill work, fixtures and furniture in ac-
cordance with the installation specifications of the manufacturer, Ar-
chitect, owner or builder including all incidental work required for
the installation, such as, welding, electrical work, carpentry work
and mechanical work, the unloading, stockpiling and distribution of
all material, the operation, use and care of all tools and equipment
required to perform the above described work
3 It states as follows
Section 3 Work covered by this Agreement also includes all work in
the installation and repair of electronic or pneumatic controlling, sig-
naling, reporting, sound, communications and audio-visual/television
in or on any type of facility or location, including but not limited to
multi-plea systems, computers, facilities/energy management systems,
control panels, access controls, perimeter/interior detection, fire
alarm, intercommunications, sound, nurse call, television systems,
audio-visual systems, electronic racks and cabinets, pneumatic tubing
and controls, as well as installation of wire, cable and tubing in ac-
cordance with the installation specifications of the manufacturer, ar-
chitect, owner or builder including all incidental work required for
the installation, such as welding, electrical work, carpentry work and
mechanical work, the unloading, stockpiling and distribution of all
material, the operation, use and care of all tools and equipment re-
quired to perform the above described work
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 482 (NORMENT GLASS) 1833
Local 432 members, supplemented by a crew of
employees represented by Glaziers Local 1778.
The Employer has used employees represented by
an Iron Workers local on only two occasions, in
Midland, Texas, where there is no Glaziers local.
Johnson testified that the Employer prefers to
use Glaziers-represented employees to perform the
work in dispute.
We therefore find that the factor of company
preference and past practice favors an award to
employees represented by the Glaziers.
3. Area and industry practice
Employees represented by the Glaziers perform
work similar to that in dispute in the Austin area
and other locations throughout the country. Jim
Reed, the Glaziers business representative, admit-
ted, however, that employees represented by the
Iron Workers also worked on similar projects at
numerous locations in the Austin area. Reed fur-
ther testified that "there is no real clear cut way of
[work] assignment in Austin," because some com-
panies assign work exclusively to employees repre-
sented by the Glaziers, while others assign it to
employees represented by the Iron Workers or to
composite crews of employees represented by both
Unions. Ragsdale estimated that in the Austin area
Glaziers-represented employees perform 30-70 per-
cent of this work similar to the Travis Building
project, while Reed testified to a figure of 75-80
percent. Thus, it appears there is no consistent area
or industry practice for assignment of this type of
work.
Accordingly, this factor does not favor an as-
signment of work to employees represented by
either Union.
4. Relative skills
The Glaziers apprenticeship program provides
instruction for the various metal fabrication and in-
stallation skills required to perform the disputed
work4 and, as noted, Glaziers-represented employ-
ees have performed similar work for this and other
employers.
Employees represented by the Iron Workers
have also performed metal installation work for
various employers. Johnson testified that employ-
ees represented by both the Glaziers and the Iron
Workers were "quality people" who did "quality
work" on previous jobs.
4 Reed is the training program's director. He testified that the curricu-
lum covers "all phases of glazing" and includes training in erection and
fabrication of all types of metal, welding, shop drawings, blueprints,
caulking, sealants, tubular metals of all types, curtain walls, glass han-
dling, fabrication, and installation.
We therefore find that this factor does not favor
an award to employees represented by either
Union.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
The disputed work essentially involves installing
metal frames on the Travis Building; Glaziers-rep-
resented employees insert glass into the metal
frames. The Employer claims it is more efficient to
employ only employees represented by the Gla-
ziers to perform all of this work. Reed and Johnson
testified that using the same people to install the
frames and to insert the glass would eliminate the
work problems such as delay, inefficiency, and
conflicts created by having a composite crew.
Reed cited an instance involving another glass
company, in which Glaziers-represented employees
had to redo faulty installation by the Iron Workers-
represented employees and stated that such prob-
lems occur quite often. In rebuttal, however, Rags-
dale testified that the problems noted by Reed
would normally be brought to his attention and
that he has received no such complaints on any
project, including the project Reed referred to.
Johnson further testified that using a composite
crew would require the Employer to use additional
employees to train and supervise the Iron Workers-
represented employees. Johnson admitted, howev-
er, that if the Employer had assigned the disputed
work to a composite crew initially it would not
have needed any additional employees.
The Employer claims that awarding the work
solely to Glaziers-represented employees would
save it money because the Glaziers-represented em-
ployees receive substantially lower wages than the
Iron Workers-represented employees.
We do not regard differences in wage rates as a
factor, however. Cuyahoga Carpenters District
Council (Midwest Exhibitors), 217 NLRB 190, 193
(1975).
We therefore find that this factor does not favor
an award to employees represented by either
Union.
6. Interunion agreement
On 22 February 1961 the Glaziers International
entered into a national agreement with the Iron
Workers International covering, inter alia, jurisdic-
tional work assignments. It is undisputed that the
national agreement, referred to by the parties as the
"blue book," awarded work such as that in dispute
to Iron Workers-represented employees. The Gla-
ziers International, however, abrogated this agree-
ment in 1974.
The Iron Workers argues that the abrogation
was not effective in Texas because in March 1974
1834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Iron Workers and Glaziers local representatives
from Houston, Fort Worth, Dallas, and Austin
reached an agreement with another Texas glass
company to assign work in accordance with the
"blue book" agreement. The Employer, however,
was a not a party to this agreement. Additionally,
Reed stated that Ragsdale was the first person to
cite the "blue book" to him in 10 years. Reed testi-
fied that he had advised Ragsdale on a "number of
occasions," including during discussions concerning
the Travis Building project, that the Glaziers con-
sidered the 1961 agreement to be abrogated, and
Johnson testified he understood the Employer may
assign work to employees represented by either
Union.
We therefore find this factor does not favor an
award of work to employees represented by either
Union.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we
conclude that Glaziers-represented employees are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach
this conclusion relying on the factor of company
preference and past practice. In making this deter-
mination, we are awarding the work to employees
represented by the Glaziers, not to that Union or
its members.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the
following Determination of Dispute.
1. Employees of Norment Glass Company, A
Division of Norment Industries, Inc., represented
by Glaziers, Architectural Metal & Glass Workers
Union No. 1778, AFL-CIO are entitled to perform
the work of installing all aluminum entrances, ex-
ceeding 125 square feet or 13 feet high or wide,
metal work in storefront fixed show or display
window units and entrance doors, installation of
aluminum windows, bronze handrails, and metal
supports for glass handrails and caulking associated
with this work, including all aluminum and steel
support angles and clips, flashing and trim at the
William B. Travis State Office Building jobsite in
Austin, Texas.
2. International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union No.
482, AFL-CIO is not entitled by means proscribed
by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force Norment
Glass Company to assign the disputed work to em-
ployees represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from this date, International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, Local Union No. 482, AFL-CIO
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 23 in
writing whether it will refrain from forcing the
Employer, by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D), to assign the disputed work in a manner
inconsistent with this determination.