Ironworkers Local 25

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 1487 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

IRONWORKERS LOCAL 25
Ironworkers Local 25, International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers,
AFL-CIO and Howe-Martz Glass Company and
Glaziers and Glass Workers Local Union No. 357,
of the International Brotherhood of Painters and
Allied Trades, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CD-367
February 28, 1980
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
a charge filed by Howe-Martz Glass Company, herein
called the Employer, alleging that Ironworkers Local
25, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, herein called
Respondent, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(d) of the Act
by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an
object of forcing or requiring the Employer to assign
certain work to its members rather than to employees
represented by Glaziers and Glass Workers Local
Union No. 357, of the International Brotherhood of
Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Glaziers.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Richard M. Whiteman on October 10
and 11, 1979. All parties appeared and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to adduce 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 proceeding, the
Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer, a Michigan corporation with its principal
place of business in Detroit, Michigan, is engaged in
the wholesale distribution and installation of glass and
related products and the contracting of glazing and
glass installation work. During the past year the
Employer purchased goods and materials from outside
the State having a value in excess of $50,000. The
parties also stipulated, and we find, that the Employer
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Ironwork-
ers Local 25, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO,
and Glaziers and Glass Workers Local Union No.
357, of the International Brotherhood of Painters and
Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
11l. THE DISPUTE
The Employer acts as a subcontractor to general
contractors for the purchase and installation of store
front framing material. The Employer has contracts
with general contractors for the installation of store-
front material at the Troy City Center project, Troy,
Michigan; the Bingham Center project, Bingham
Farms, Michigan; and the GMC Computer Center
Complex project, Warren, Michigan.
Pursuant to its collective-bargaining agreement with
the Glaziers, the Employer assigned the work on all
three sites to employees represented by the Glaziers.
Shortly thereafter, members of Respondent threatened
glaziers who were performing the disputed work on
the Troy and Bingham Farms sites and commenced
picketing at the Bingham Farms site. On June 18,
1979, the Employer filed a charge with the Board
alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(d) of
the Act, and a 10(k) hearing was scheduled. At the
hearing the parties also stipulated that reasonable
cause exists to believe that Respondent has engaged in
conduct in violation of Section 8(b)(4Xd) to induce the
Employer to assign the disputed work on the GMC
Computer Center Complex project to ironworkers.
On July 13, 1979, Respondent's attorney called the
Employer's attorney to request an adjournment of the
above hearing date and to discuss the possibility of
submitting the dispute to the AFL-CIO Impartial
Jurisdictional disputes Board, hereafter the IJDB.
Shortly thereafter, Respondent's business representa-
tive and the Employer's vice president had a similar
discussion about submitting the dispute to the IJDB.
Following a second discussion with the Employer's
attorney, Respondent's attorney sent a letter on July
20, 1979, to the Regional Director stating that the
Employer had agreed to be bound by a decision of the
IJDB. On August 1, 1979, Respondent's attorney
called the Employer's attorney to inform him that the
IJDB would consider the work dispute the next day.
247 NLRB No. 200
1487
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer's attorney stated that his client would
neither appear nor participate and was not willing to
be bound by the IJDB DECISION. The Employer's
attorney also sent a letter to the Regional Director to
that effect.
On August 3, 1979, the IJDB issued its decisions
awarding the disputed work at the Troy City Center
project and the GM project to Respondent. The IJDB
did not issue a decision regarding the disputed work
on the Bingham Farms project because it was not
requested to do so.
A. The Work In Dispute
At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the work
in dispute involves the unloading, storing, and installa-
tion of storefront framing material at the Troy City
Center project, Troy City, Michigan; the Bingham
Center project, Bingham Farms, Michigan; and the
GMC Computer Center Complex project, Warren,
Michigan.
B. The Contentions of the Parties
Respondent's sole contention is that the Board is
without jurisdiction to determine the merits of this
dispute under Section 10(k) of the Act because the
parties have agreed upon a method for the voluntary
adjustment of the dispute.
The Employer contends that the dispute is properly
before the Board because it did not enter into an
agreement which established a method to voluntarily
settle the work dispute. The Employer also asserts that
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(d) by engaging in
strikes and picketing and by making threatening
statements for a proscribed purpose. The position of
the Glaziers, the party to the dispute, is in agreement
with that of the Employer.
C. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
of the dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it
must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and
that the parties have not agreed upon a method for the
voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
As it appears that Respondent has engaged in
picketing and made threatening statements to force
the Employer to reassign the work from the Glaziers,
In this letter the Employer's attorney stated that he did not want to
adjourn the IO(k) hearing any longer. He further stated that he had discussed
the possibility of submitting the dispute to the IJDB but that the Employer
would not participate in any IJDB proceeding that was limited to specific
work projects and that any submission to the IJDB must properly define the
disputed work. The record establishes that the authority of the IJDB is limited
to the specific disputes that are brought before it and that the Respondent
we find that there is reasonable cause to believe a
violation of the Act occurred and the dispute is
properly before us for determination.
Respondent contends that an agreed-upon method
for the voluntary adjustment of this dispute exists.
Respondent asserts that the Employer and the Gla-
ziers are bound by agreement to submit the dispute to
the AFL-CIO Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes
Board (IJDB) for resolution. In support of this
assertion Respondent points out that Respondent and
the Glaziers are bound by decisions of the IJDB
because they are both affiliated with the AFL-CIO
Building and Construction Trades Department. Re-
spondent also asserts that on the basis of three
telephone conversations between representatives of
Respondent and the Employer, the Employer agreed
to submit the instant dispute to the IJDB and further
that the Employer, through other conduct, has mani-
fested an intent to be bound by the IJDB decision.
Respondent asserts that in two telephone conversa-
tions between its attorneys and the Employer's attor-
ney an agreement was reached to submit the dispute to
the IJDB for resolution. Respondent also claims that
the Employer's vice president told Respondent's
business agent in a telephone conversation that he
wanted the dispute submitted to the IJDB and agreed
that the IJDB was the best method to resolve future
work disputes. At the hearing, the Employer's attor-
ney and vice president explicitly denied that they had
ever agreed to submit the dispute to the IJDB for
resolution. In addition, it is uncontested that on
August 1, 1979, the day before the scheduled IJDB
hearing, the Employer's attorney informed Respon-
dent's attorney that the Employer refused to partici-
pate in the IJDB proceeding and that it would not be
bound by an IJDB award. It is also uncontested that,
on August 1, the Employer's attorney sent a letter to
the Regional Director wherein he stated that the
Employer would not be bound by an IJDB decision.'
Respondent admits that on August 1, 1979, it was
informed that the Employer refused to participate or
be bound by the IJDB proceeding. However, Respon-
dent contends that on the basis of the Employer's
earlier agreement to be bound by an IJDB award there
was a voluntary method by which the dispute would
be resolved. As additional support for this contention,
Respondent asserts that the Employer, through its
conduct, manifested an intent to be bound by the
IJDB decision. Thus, Respondent claims that the
Employer first raised the possibility of submitting the
only submitted the disputes at the Troy and GMC worksite% for resolution by
the IJDB. Accordingly, the Employer asserts that it is not bound by the IJDB
award herein because that award was limited to the Troy and the GMC
Computer Complex projects. The Employer also contends that it is not bound
by the IJDB decision because the work assignment dispute, as submitted to
the IJDB by Respondent, was not properly defined.
1488
IRONWORKERS LOCAL 25
dispute to the IJDB, the Employer furnished construc-
tion plans to the IJDB and extended offers of further
assistance, the Employer complied with the IJDB
decision by assigning the disputed work to members of
Respondent,' and the Employer did not deny the
existence of an agreement to be bound by the IJDB
decision until the day before the IJDB hearing.
We find no merit to Respondent's contention. In
view of the Employer's clear refusal to participate in
the IJDB proceedings on August 1, 1979, and the
Employer's explicit denial that it had ever agreed to
participate in such proceedings,' we find that Respon-
dent's assertions are insufficient to establish the
existence of an agreed-upon method for resolving the
work dispute. N.L.R.B. v. Plasterers Local Union No.
79, Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' Interna-
tional Association, AFL-CIO [Texas State Tile and
Terrazzo Co.], 404 U.S. 116 (1971).
On the basis of the entire record, we conclude that
there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that there exists
no agreed-upon method for the voluntary adjustment
of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of
the Act. Accordingly, we find that this dispute is
properly before the Board for determination.
D. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) of the Act requires the Board to make
an affirmative award of disputed work after giving due
consideration to various factors.4 The Board has held
that its determination in a jurisdictional dispute is an
act of judgment based on commonsense and experi-
ence reached by balancing those factors involved in a
particular case.
The following factors are relevant in making the
determination of the dispute before us:
i. Certification and collective-bargaining
agreements
The Glaziers was certified as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of a unit of the Employer's employ-
ees in 1956 and has had a collective-bargaining
relationship with the Employer since that time. The
current collective-bargaining agreement between the
Glaziers and the Employer covers the installation of
storefront framing material. Respondent has never
: The record is unclear as to what extent ironworkers performed the work in
dispute subsequent to the IJDB decision. At the hearing, the Employer's vice
president testified that, subsequent to the award by the IJDB, the Employer
reassigned the installation work at the GMC Computer Complex project to
ironworkers. However, he further testified that the Employer later reassigned
the installation work at the GM site to glaziers because some of the work
performed by ironworkers was unsatisfactory and that the ironworkers lacked
the skills to properly perform the work. In addition, the Employer's vice
president testified that in the future the Employer intended to use employees
represented by the Glaziers to perform its store front installation work. The
been certified as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of a unit of the Employer's employees and the
only agreement it has with the Employer was signed
on February 2, 1979, wherein the Employer agreed
that if it hired any members of Respondent they would
be paid the wages and benefits set forth in the current
collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent
and the Associated General Contractors, Detroit
Chapter, Inc. Accordingly, we find that the Glaziers
certification and contract with the Employer favor an
assignment of the work to employees represented by
the Glaziers.
2. Employer's assignment, preference, and past
practice
The Employer initially assigned the work in dispute
on the Troy Center, Bingham Center, and GMC
projects to its employees represented by the Glaziers.
The Employer's vice president, Jerry Howe, testified
that in the last 5 years in hundreds of jobs involving
the installation of storefront framing material the
Employer has always used glaziers to do the work.
Howe further testified that the Employer has always
used glaziers in the past in other instances involving
disputed work and would prefer that the installation
work on the three sites in the instant case be
completed by glaziers.
Howe further testified that the Employer has only
used ironworkers to do specific jobs such as installing
steel curtain walls, welding, and furnishing miscella-
neous iron to be attached to the storefront framing.
The only exception to this practice has been four or
five occasions when the Employer has used joint crews
of ironworkers and glaziers to do installation work.
The record indicates that the type of storefront
framing material to be installed at the Troy Center,
Bingham Center, and GMC projects was produced by
the Kawneer Company which sells such material to
authorized dealers only. To become a dealer, the
Employer must prove that it has sufficient employees
capably skilled in the installation of this material.
Howe-Martz has been a dealer for about 50 years, has
consistently used employees represented by the Gla-
ziers to do its installation work, and has also sent its
employees represented by the Glaziers to Kawneer
training programs. Howe-Martz has never sent em-
ployees represented by Respondent to such training
Employer performed no further work at the Troy Center project and thus no
work was reassigned at that jobsite. As indicated above, the IJDB did not
render a decision on the Bingham Center project.
' See Local Union No. 9. Wood Wire & Metal Larthers International Union
(A. W Lee). 113 NLRB 947, 953 (1955).
' N.LR.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union. Local 1212,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. AFL-CIO Columbia Broad-
casting Systems/. 364 U.S. 573 (1961).
International Association of Machinists. Lodge No. 1743. AFL-CIO (J. A.
Jones Construction Company). 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
1489
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
programs. We conclude, therefore, that Howe-Martz'
assignment, preference, and past practice tend to favor
employees represented by the Glaziers.
3. Area and industry practice
Howe-Martz' vice president, Howe, testified that
the area practice has been to assign the installation of
storefront framing material to employees represented
by Glaziers. He also testified that he did not know of
any employer in the geographic area that uses employ-
ees represented by Respondent to install storefront
framing material. Harry Fridson, president of Benz
Glass Company, testified that since his company
began operations in 1963, it has always used glaziers
and not ironworkers to install storefront framing
material. Howe-Martz and Benz Glass Company are
both members of the Detroit Area Glazing Contrac-
tors Association, the largest glazing contractor associ-
ation in Detroit. Mervin E. Murphy, president of the
association, testified that the practice of all 10 mem-
bers of the association has been to assign the installa-
tion of storefront framing materials to employees
represented by the Glaziers. We, therefore, find that
the factor of area and industry practice favors an
award of the disputed work to employees represented
by the Glaziers.
4. IJDB determination
The IJDB, by letter, awarded the disputed work on
the Troy Center and the GM projects to Respondent.
Since Respondent has failed to present sufficient
evidence that the Employer agreed to be bound by an
IJDB decision, we find this factor to be inconclusive in
making a determination of which group of employees
will be awarded the disputed work. N.L.R.B. v.
Plasterers Local Union No. 79, etc. [Texas State Tile &
Terrazzo Co.], supra.
5. Relative skills, safety, economy, and efficiency
The special skills required to install storefront
framing material include the ability to read and
understand architectural drawings, a knowledge of the
materials involved, and the ability to install frames
square, straight, and level. The Employer's experience
with the work of the glaziers and the ironworkers has
convinced it that employees represented by the Gla-
ziers are more skillful and more adaptable to new
concepts in storefront framing systems than employees
See, e.g. Iron Workers Local Union #290. International Association of
Bridge. Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers. AFL-CIO (Israel Builders
Suppliers. Ine.). 223 NLRB 790, 792 (1976); United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States
and Canada. Local No. 155 (Allied-McCarty Supply Co.. Inc.). 222 NLRB
represented by Respondent. Also, glaziers, unlike
ironworkers, are trained through an apprentice pro-
gram which gives them on-the-job experience install-
ing storefront framing material. In addition, since
glaziers are ultimately responsible for the installation
of the glass, they better understand how the framing
should be installed. Accordingly, we find that the
factors of relative skills, safety, economy, and efficien-
cy favor awarding the disputed work to the employees
represented by the Glaziers.
Conclusion
Upon the record as a whole, and after full consider-
ation of all relevant factors involved, we conclude that
employees who are represented by the Glaziers are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this
conclusion relying on the Employer's past contracts
with the Glaziers, the company and area practice, the
relative skills of the employees represented by the
Glaziers, and the Employer's initial assignment and
overall preference that the disputed work be per-
formed by its employees represented by the Glaziers.
In making this determination, we are awarding the
work in question to employees who are represented by
the Glaziers, but not to that Union or its members.
Scope of Award
The Employer requests that the Board issue a broad
order covering all similar work of the Employer in the
future which is within Respondent's jurisdiction. The
Employer contends that the facts of this case meet the
Board's standards for the issuance of a broad order.
The Employer further contends that a broad order is
needed because the Employer has a great deal of
storefront framing work planned for the future and
because the Employer needs to know that it can hire
those employees whom it prefers to do the work.
In order for the Board to issue a broad order, there
must be a reasonable likelihood that similar disputes
will occur in the future.6 In the instant case, the
Glaziers. business agent testified that Respondent's
representatives indicated that Respondent will con-
tinue to claim storefront installation work on all area
jobs in the future. However, the record evidence falls
short of indicating that Respondent intends by any
unlawful means to prevent the Employer from assign-
796, 800 (1976); General Truck Drivers. Warehousemen and Helpers Local
Union No, 5. etc. (Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Company). 221 NLRB
1186, 1189 (1975); Glaziers. Glassworkers and Glass Warehouse Workers
Union. Local No. 636 (Plaza Glass Company). 214 NLRB 912. 915 (1974).
1490
IRONWORKERS LOCAL 25
ing the work in dispute to employees represented by
the Glaziers7 or that the dispute herein is likely to
recur.B In the absence of evidence that Respondent
intends to prevent the assignment of the disputed
work on the Employers future jobs to employees
represented by the Glaziers, we find that the issuance
of a broad order is not warranted in this case.
Therefore, our present determination is limited to the
disputed work on the three sites which gave rise to this
proceeding.
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
makes the following Determination of Dispute:
1. Employees of Howe-Martz Glass Company who
are represented by Glaziers and Glassworkers Local
Union No. 357, of the International Brotherhood of
Glaziers and Glassworkers, Local No. 636. supra at 915.
Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, are entitled to
perform the unloading, storing, and installation of
storefront framing material at the Troy City Center
project, Troy City, Michigan; the Bingham Center
project; Bingham Farms, Michigan; and the GMC
Computer Center Complex, Warren, Michigan.
2. Ironworkers Local 25, International Association
of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers,
AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(d) of the Act to force or require Howe-
Martz Glass Company to assign the disputed work to
employees represented by that labor organization.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute, Ironworkers Local 25,
International Association of Bridge, Structural, and
Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, whether or
not it will refrain from forcing or requiring the
Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(d)
of the Act, to assign the disputed work in a manner
inconsistent with the above determination.
· UnitedAssociation of Journeymen ec., Local Na 155, supra at 800.
1491