Laborers' International Union Of North America, Afl-Cio

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 7, 1986

277 N.L.R.B. 1438 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Construction and General Laborers Local Union No.
721, a/w Laborers ' International Union of
North America , AFL-CIO and Bechtel Con-
struction, Inc. and Carpenters Local No. 624,
a/w United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CD-747
7 January 1986
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed 27 June 1985 by the Employer, alleging that
the Respondent, Construction and General Labor-
ers Local Union No. 721, a/w Laborers' Interna-
tional Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Labor-
ers Local 721) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
National 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
Carpenters Local No. 624, a/w United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO (Carpenters Local 624). The hearing was held
28 and 29 August 1985 before Hearing Officer
Peter W. Gallaudet.
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 Nevada corporation, is a gener-
al construction contractor which maintains its prin-
cipal place of business at 50 Beale Street, San Fran-
cisco, California, and performs work at construc-
tion' projects throughout the various States of the
United States, including the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and in foreign countries. During the
course of the 12 months preceding the date of the
hearing, the Employer had gross revenues in excess
of $500,000 and purchased goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 from points located
outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for
delivery to its construction project at Plymouth,
Massachusetts. The parties stipulate, and we find,
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and
that Laborers Local 721 and Carpenters Local 624
are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The Employer is a maintenance contractor for
the construction of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Sta-
tion at Plymouth, Massachusetts. It employs mem-
bers of several building trades, including laborers
represented by Laborers Local 721 and carpenters,
represented by Carpenters Local 624.
In May or June 19851 laborers employed at the
jobsite began digging a trench for laying conduit.
The conduit was to be used as a "duct bank,"
which holds cable for transmitting electricity
placed in the conduit after the conduit is set in the
trench and covered with concrete. The employees
were constructing the duct bank around three sides
of the reactor building at the Pilgrim site.2
Sometime before 17 June, a heavy rainstorm
caused some erosion in the trench in which the
conduit was being laid. The laborers had placed
plastic over the sides of the trench to keep the rain
away from the banks, but the rain seeped in under
the plastic.
On 17 June, Al Gray, the Employer's line super-
intendent on the duct bank work informed Ted
Pearson, the Employer's project superintendent,
that some form of wooden supports had to be
placed in the trench to deal with the effects of the
erosion before concrete could be poured over the
conduit. Pearson testified that his initial impression
was that the rain had washed out the banks of the
trench and Gray needed to shore the banks up to
prevent them from collapsing. After discussing the
problem extensively, however, Pearson and Gray
decided that they needed to place plywood boards
around the conduit in the trench to provide a form
for the concrete which was to be poured over the
conduit. Pearson reported their decision to Noel
Borck, the Employer's senior labor relations repre-
sentative, on 17 June. Pearson and Borck discussed
the nature of the work on 17 and 18 June. Borck
asked Pearson if the work was intended as shoring,
i.e., to hold up the banks. Pearson replied that it
was not shoring, and explained the work's purpose.'
Although Pearson and Borck discussed the fact
that the base of the wooden planks would have the
secondary function of preventing further dirt from
slipping in under the conduit, they decided that
primarily they needed to construct a form for the
concrete. Borck and Pearson thus decided to assign
the work to Carpenters-represented employees
' All dates refer to 1985 unless otherwise specified
2 The employees were placing about 1400 feet of duct bank, and the
work in dispute involves about 30 feet of the total job
277 NLRB No. 150
LABORERS LOCAL 721 (BECHTEL CONSTRUCTION) 1439
based on their understanding of the Employer's
preference and past practice.
On 20 June employee John Hill, a member of
Laborers Local 721, was working at the disputed
site . Hill testified that he and the other employees
working there were told to start shoring up the
trench with plywood because some dirt had fallen
into the trench and it was necessary to prevent the
dirt from coming in under the conduit. Hill was
subsequently taken off the disputed jobsite and
transferred to another crew. On 21 June Hill
learned that the Employer had assigned the disput-
ed work to Carpenters-represented employees. Hill
contacted Mike Halloran , the jobsite representative
for the building trades International Unions which
have a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Employer, and Hill and Halloran went to see Pear-
son. They informed Pearson that the work was
shoring, and that it should therefore be assigned to
employees represented by the Laborers according
to the Employer's past practice. Peason replied that
it was not shoring, but form work for the concrete.
On 24 June Hill informed Louis Palavanchi,
business manager of Laborers Local 721, that there
was a dispute over the assignment of the work in
question. On 26 June Palavanchi met with Edward
Shyloski, the Employer's general superintendent,
and other representatives of the Laborers and the
Employer. Palavanchi showed Shyloski pictures of
the disputed work and contended that it was shor-
ing, and that the Employer should assign it to em-
ployees represented by the Laborers. Shyloski ini-
tially agreed that the work looked like shoring, but
he called in Pearson, who explained the nature of
the work and the circumstances of the assignment.
Shyloski then agreed with the assignment Pearson
and Borck made.
Although there is some dispute over exactly
what happened next, there is no dispute that em-
ployees represented by Laborers Local 721 walked
off the job at the site of the disputed work between
2 and 3 p.m. on 26 June to protest the assignment
of the disputed work to employees represented by
Carpenters Local 624. Shyloski, the Employer's
general superintendent, testified that on 26 June
Louis Palavanchi, the business manager of Labor-
ers Local 721, told a member of Laborers Local
721 "to pull the men off the job." Pearson, the Em-
ployer's project superintendent, corroborated Shy-
loski's testimony. Shyloski also testified that he
went to the disputed worksite on 26 June and
heard an announcement that "Skippy [Palavanchi]
wants everybody off the job." Palavanchi neither
admitted nor denied he ordered the employees to
strike. Rather, he testified that later that day he
saw the employees walking a picket line, and at 3
p.m. he attempted to persuade them to go back to
work. The employees set up a picket line at the en-
trance to the construction site parking area, and
some of the picketers carried signs reading "Bech-
tel Unfair to Local 721." Shyloski testified that the
picketers prevented a truck from delivering a load
of concrete by blocking the entrance to the con-
struction site.
On 26 June Shyloski agreed to meet with Pala-
vanchi again if the employees went back to work.
Palavanchi asked Hill to tell the employees to go
back to work, which they did on 27 June. Palavan-
chi met with Shylo^ki and Borck at 8 a.m. on 27
June, and asked Shyloski to reconsider the assign-
ment. Shyloski asked Palavanchi to respect the
procedures for resolving jurisdictional disputes
under the collective-bargaining agreement which
the Employer had entered into with various Inter-
national building trades unions.3 Palavanchi re-
fused, and the meeting ended.
Employees represented by Laborers Local 721
again walked off the job about 9:30 a.m. on 27
June, and set up a picket line. Neither Shyloski nor
Pearson testified that Business Manager Palavanchi
authorized the strike on 27 June, and Palavanchi
testified only that he "found out" later that day
that the employees had walked off the job. On
both 26 and 27 June Laborers International Union
officials sent telegrams to Laborers Local 721 and
Palavanchi ordering them to end the work stop-
page in compliance with the terms of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement entered into by the Em-
ployer and the International building trades unions.
Palavanchi called the foremen on the job on the
evening of 27 June, and told them to tell the em-
ployees to go back to work or they would be fired,
and that the International had informed him it
would send somebody to resolve the dispute. The
employees reported for work as scheduled on 28
June.
In U.S. district court on 28 June the Employer
and Laborers Local 721 stipulated that Laborers
Local 721 would take no action with regard to the
jurisdictional dispute and that the employees repre-
sented by Laborers Local 721 would remain on the
job. Subsequently, the Employer and Laborers
Local 721 agreed that the stipulation would remain
in effect until the Board's determination in this
10(k) proceeding. The agreement became a part of
the district court's order which issued on 20
August 1985.
3 The General Presidents' Project Maintenance Agreement by Con-
tract, which the president of the Laborers International Union of North
America signed. Laborers Local 721 contends it is not a party to this
agreement. See factor 1, "Certifications and collective-bargaining agree-
ments," infra
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Work in Dispute
The disputed work involves the cutting, erection,
and installation of plywood boards around conduit
constructed as a duct bank for transmitting electric
lines at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in
Plymouth, Massachusetts.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the disputed work
constitutes a form for the pouring of concrete, and
that it should be assigned to employees represented
by Carpenters Local 624, citing its preference and
past practice, area and industry practice, the rela-
tive skills of the two groups of employees, and
economy and efficiency of operation. Laborers
Local 721 contends'that the disputed work was in-
tended to function and actually does function as
shoring for the banks of the trench. Laborers Local
721 urges that the Employer's past practice and
area and industry practice all dictate that shoring
work should be assigned to employees it represents.
In addition , Laborers Local 721 submits that the
Employer's preference to assign the work to Car-
penters-represented employees is inexplicable in
light of its past practice, that Laborers-represented
employees possess the necessary skills to perform
the disputed work, and that considerations of effi-
ciency favor an assignment to Laborers-represented
employees because they have done most of the
other work associated with constructing the duct
bank. Although Carpenters Local 624 did not
submit a brief, it appeared and introduced evidence
at the hearing to support its contention that the
Employer correctly assigned the work to employ-
ees represented by the Carpenters based on area
and industry practice and the relative skills of the
two groups of employees.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determina-
tion pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must
be satisfied (1) that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and
(2) that the parties have not agreed upon a method
for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
With regard to (1) above, although the Laborers
Local 721 business manager did not admit that he
either authorized or ordered the employees to walk
off the job, it is undisputed that employees repre-
sented by Laborers Local 721 went out on strike
on 26 and 27 June to protest the Employer's deci-
sion to assign the disputed work to employees rep-
resented by Carpenters Local 624 rather than to
Laborers-represented employees. In addition, both
Shyloski, the Employer's general superintendent,
and Pearson, its project superintendent, testified
without contradiction that the strikers prevented a
secondary employer from making a delivery of
concrete to the Employer's jobsite. It is not neces-
sary for us to resolve the disputed testimony con-
cerning whether an officer of Laborers Local 721
authorized the strike. It is well settled that a con-
flict in testimony does not prevent the Board from
proceeding under Section 10(k) because we are not
required to find that a violation did in fact occur,
but only that reasonable cause exists to believe that
Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated.4 Laborers
Local 721 does not argue in its brief that such rea-
sonable cause does not exist. It is undisputed that
employees represented by Laborers Local 721 en-
gaged in a strike and prevented a secondary em-
ployer from making deliveries for the proscribed
purpose of forcing the Employer to change its as-
signment. Palavanchi, the business manager of La-
borers Local 721, did not directly deny that he au-
thorized the employees to strike, and there is cor-
roborated testimony that he ordered the strike.
Without ruling on the credibility of the testimony
at issue, we conclude that there is sufficient evi-
dence that Laborers Local 721 is responsible for
the strike activity on the part of the employes it
represents,s and therefore we find reasonable cause
to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
occurred. The parties stipulated that they have not
agreed upon a method for voluntary resolution of
this dispute. 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 determining
this dispute.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining
agreements
The parties stipulated that the Board has not cer-
tified either labor organization as the collective-
4 Iron Workers Local 563 (Midstates Corp.), 272 NLRB 1371 (1984),
Pointers Local 813 (Cincinnati Floor), 261 NLRB 462, 464 (1982).
5 See Plumbers Local 15 (Minnesota Tile), 258 NLRB 455, 457 (1981),
Carpenters Local 1485 (C. J. Reinke & Sons), 254 NLRB 1091, 1093, and
fn 6 (1981)
LABORERS LOCAL 72=1 (BECHTEL CONSTRUCTION)
bargaining representative for a unit of the 'E,mploy-
er's employees.
The Employer claims that it entered into a col-
lective-bargaining .agreement with Laborers Local
721, the General Presidents' Project Maintenance
Agreement by Contract (GPPMA). This ',agree-
ment, effective 25 March 1982 through 24 March
1983 and year to year, thereafter absent timely
notice of termination, was signed by the Employer
and the general presidents of various building
trades International unions, including the Laborers
International. Although Laborers Local 721 is af-
filiated with the Laborers International and has
processed grievances under 'the GPPMA, it claims
that it is not bound by the agreement. In any event,
although the GPPMA does contain provisions for
settling work jurisdiction disputes through the
intercession of a committee of the general presi-
dents of the International-unions, it does not con
taro any provisions which cover the work in dis-
pute.
Laborers Local 721 claims that the Employer
has agreed to abide by the terms of a collective-
bargaining agreement between the Labor Relations
Division of Construction Industries' of Massachu-
setts, Inc. and the Massachusetts Laborers District-
Council of the Laborers International Union of
North America. Laborers Local 721 is a party to
the agreement. Although the agreement does con-,
taro provisions which would justify granting the
work in dispute to Laborers-represented employ-
ees, assuming the work. functioned as shoring for
the duct bank trench, the Employer claims it is not
a party to the agreement, and it is not listed as a
signatory.. Although Carpenters Local 624 intro-
duced an area agreement containing jurisdictional
provisions to which it is a party, no party claims
that the Employer is a party to the area agreement
or has agreed to be bound by its terms.
Because there is no collective-bargaining agree-
ment covering the disputed work and clearly bind-
ing both the Employer and either Laborers Local
721 or Carpenters Local 624, this factor is not
helpful in resolving this dispute.
2. Company preference and past practice
All parties agree that the Employer's preference,
as well as its consistent past practice at the con-
struction site, has been to, assign work involving
the erection and installation of plywood structures
which serve as concrete forms to employees repre-
sented by Carpenters Local 624, and to assign simi-
lar work involving structures which serve as shor-
ing for trenches to employees represented by La-
borers Local 721.
1441
The evidence concerning the Employer's past
practice on another job involving digging a trench
for a pipeline, comparable to the work in dispute,
supports the Employer's contention that the work
in dispute is concrete form work that the Employer
has customarily assigned to employees represented
by the Carpenters rather than shoring work which
the Employer has customarily assigned to Labor-
ers-represented employees. The Employer installed
a pipeline for transmitting water to its sprinkler
system for fire prevention ( a "fire liner") in a trench
laborers dug in late 1982 and early 1983. Employ-
ees represented by Laborers Local 721 installed
plywood boards along the sides of the trench. Al
though concrete was poured to form "thrust
blocks" supporting elbows in the pipeline, the la-
borers covered most of the pipe with dirt instead
of concrete. They installed the plywood boards at
various angles , either vertically or leaning away
from each other, and they secured the boards pri-
marily using adjustable construction "screw jacks"
instead of nails and supporting beams.
In contrast, employees represented by Carpenters
Local 624 installed plywood 'boards at precise 90-
degree angles along the entire length of the duct
bank work in dispute. They supported the boards
by nailing crossbeams into two-by-four, beams run-,
ning along the entire length of the plywood. The
rainstorm -before 17 June eroded the trench to
some extent, and the .laborers removed, some of the
loose dirt that washed into the trench . James'
Gregg,. the Employer's production superintendent,
testified that the plywood boards were necessary to
contain the concrete in order to avoid pouring it
into the entire trench, including the parts that were -
shoveled out. Project Superintendent Pearson testi-
fied that it was necessary to place the boards at
precise angles to ensure that the Laborers-repre-
sented employees poured just enough concrete to
reach 2 inches above the reinforcing bar which
they placed over the, conduit. 6 These precise
angles, which required the employees cut the
boards and their supporting beams to exact mews,
urements and keep'them level and plumb along the
length of the disputed work, contrast with the hap-
hazard arrangement of the-boards which the em-
ployees represented by Laborers Local' 721 placed
in the "fire line" trench in 1982 and 1983. The Em-
ployer's past practice. of assigning concrete form
work to employees represented by the Carpenters
is based in part on its preference that carpenters,
6 The Employer's specifications require this 2-inch coverage, or "toler-
ance," of concrete in order to ensure compliance with Nuclear Regula-
tory Commission requirements for nuclear plant construction
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and not laborers, perform work with wood requir-
ing such precise measurements.
Thus, the Employer's preference and past prac-
tice not only support its contention that all con-
crete form work is assigned to employees repre-
sented by Carpenters Local 624; these factors also
support the conclusion that the work in dispute ac-
tually functions as concrete form work of the type
that is customarily assigned to employees repre-
sented by the Carpenters. Therefore, these factors
favor an award of the disputed work to employees
represented by Carpenters Local 624.
3. Area and industry practice
The parties agree that construction industry
practice in the area is to assign concrete form work
to employees represented by the Carpenters and
shoring work to employees represented by the La-
borers. The area agreement to which Laborers
Local 721 is a party,' which covers the territorial
jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachu-
setts, supports such an interpretation because it
contains a provision granting employees represent-
ed by the Laborers jurisdiction over "lagging and
shoring of all ditches, trenches and manholes." The
same agreement contains parallel provisions which
grant Laborers-represented employees jurisdiction
over stripping and moving of forms for the pouring
of concrete, but not over their erection or installa-
tion. The area agreement to which Carpenters
Local 624 is a party, whose territorial jurisdiction
includes Plymouth, Massachusetts, the site of the
disputed work,8 gives employees represented by
the Carpenters jurisdiction over "[t]he making, set-
ting and stripping of all forms used in concrete
work."
Therefore, because, as outlined above, the nature
of the work as compared to the Employer's past
practice indicates that the disputed work functions
as a form for the pouring of concrete, area and in-
dustry practice favors awarding the disputed work
to employees represented by Carpenters Local 624.
4., Relative skills
Employees represented by the Laborers, as well
as the Laborers Local 721 business manager, testi-
fied that laborers are capable of using, and have
used, a wide variety of tools and skills required for
measuring, cutting, erecting, leveling, and installing
' See factor 1, "Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements,"
supra
8 Carpenters Local 624 entered into this agreement with the Southeast-
ern Massachusetts General Contractors Association, The Associated Gen-
eral Contractors of Massachusetts, Inc, and the Building Trades Employ-
ers' Association of Boston and Eastern Massachusetts, Inc The Employer
is not a party The agreement is effective 15 June 1983 through 31 May
1985 and year to year thereafter absent timely notice of termination
plywood boards in trenches. Project Superintend-
ent Pearson testified, however, that employees rep-
resented by the Carpenters are more capable of
performing the precise measurements and cuts, as
well as the leveling and "plumbing" (i.e., keeping
the boards vertical), involved in setting concrete
forms. Pearson also testified, however, that some of
the Laborers-represented employees might also be
capable of performing this work. On balance, we
find that this factor does not favor awarding the
disputed work to either group of employees.
5. Economy and efficiency of operation
With the exception of the disputed work, em-
ployees represented by Laborers Local 721 have
performed almost all the work associated with
laying the duct bank, including digging the trench
and pouring the concrete.9 The fact that the labor-
ers must wait for the carpenters to install the ply-
wood before the laborers pour the concrete sug-
gests that it might have been more efficient to
allow the laborers to perform the disputed work.
The interruption of the work, however, is counter-
balanced by the fact that employees represented by
Carpenters Local 624 are more skilled than the La-
borers-represented employees at making the precise
measurements and performing the leveling and
plumbing required for the construction of the
structure so that the employees will keep the con-
crete pour within the required amounts. In addi-
tion, there were already several pipes traversing
the ditch when it was dug, and it was necessary to
sleeve those pipes and cut slots in the plywood to
fit the boards over them. Project Superintendent
Pearson testified that although some of the Labor-
ers-represented employees might be capable of per-
forming the precise measuring and cutting neces-
sary for this work, Carpenters-represented employ-
ees more frequently perform such work, and thus
they can complete the job faster and more effi-
ciently.
Laborers Local 721 introduced extensive evi-
dence concerning the pouring of the concrete into
the plywood structure and around the conduit to
support its contention that if the work was truly in-
tended to function as a form, and not as shoring for
the trench, it was not done efficiently. In particu-
lar, employees represented by the Laborers testified
that the Employer's superintendent directed them
to remove the plywood before the concrete had
set, which caused the concrete to "mushroom,"
i.e., to sluff off against the side of the trench. La-
borers Local 721 contends that if the plywood
9 The duct bank work in the disputed area was completed before the
hearing
LABORERS LOCAL 721 (BECHTEL CONSTRUCTION)
structures were intended as forms, the Employer's
purpose of limiting the amount of concrete poured
over the duct banks was defeated because the
"mushrooming" required the Employer to use
more concrete than it had planned to use. In addi-
tion, Palavanchi, the Laborers business manager,
testified that plywood structures that function as
shoring are customarily removed before concrete
sets if concrete is poured between them because
they are not being used to regulate the level of the
concrete.
James Gregg, the Employer's production super-
intendent, conceded that some "mushrooming" did
occur, but he testified that it happened because a
substitute line superintendent deviated from the
Employer's planned method for removing the ply-
wood structure. The initial plan was to pour one
"lift" of 18 inches of concrete, let it set, and pull
the plywood up 18 inches. Then the final 18 inches
would be poured, topped off, and allowed to set
before the plywood was pulled completely out of
the trench. The substitute superintendent, however,
neglected to tell the Laborers-represented employ-
ees to pull the plywood after they poured the ini-
tial 18 inches of concrete, and instead they pulled
the forms entirely out of the trench after the
second 18-inch "lift" was poured on top of the first
18 inches. Although the production superintendent
testified that the concrete had 1 to 1-1/2 hours to
set before the laborers pulled the plywood out, he
also testified that there was some "mushrooming"
of the concrete where it had not set to a sufficient
hardness. Thus, the Employer was required to use
some extra concrete to make up for the "mush-
rooming," though, contrary to the Laborers con-
tention, it did not require an additional pour of
concrete.; 0
The fact that some "mushrooming" of the con-
crete occurred because the Employer mistakenly
used an inefficient method for removing the ply-
wood structure does not affect our conclusion that
the disputed work was intended to function, and
did function, as a form for the pouring of the con-
crete. The Laborers contention concerns only the
manner in which the employees performed the
work, and does not change the nature of the work
itself.
Because it is necessary to interrupt the Laborers-
represented employees' work so that the Carpen-
ters-represented employees can erect and install the
plywood boards, whereas the Carpenters-represent-
10 An additional pour was necessary, however, in parts of the duct
bank where the Employer discovered that an electrician had set the con-
duit 5 inches too high.
1443
ed employees can perform the work more efficient-
ly than the Laborers-represented employees, we
find that on balance the factor of economy and ef-
ficiency of operation does not favor an award of
the disputed work to either group of employees.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we
conclude that employees represented by Carpenters
Local 624 are entitled to perform the work in dis-
pute. We reach this conclusion relying on the Em-
ployer's preference and past practice and the area
and industry practice, which favor the granting of
form work for the pouring of concrete to employ-
ees represented by the Carpenters. Because we also
conclude that the nature of the work, as well as the
Employer's past practice, provides overwhelming
evidence that the disputed work was intended to
function, and did function, as a concrete form, and
not as shoring for the trench, all the above-noted
factors favor the assignment of the work to em-
ployees represented by the Carpenters. In making
this determination, we are awarding the work to
employees represented by Carpenters Local 624,
not to that Union or its members. The determina-
tion is limited to the controversy that gave rise to
this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the
following Determination of Dispute.
1. Employees of Bechtel Construction, Inc. rep-
resented by Carpenters Local No. 624, a/w United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO are entitled to perform the cutting,
erection, and installation of plywood boards around
conduit constructed as a duct bank for transmitting
electric lines at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
2. Construction and General Laborers Local
Union No. 721, a/w Laborers International Union
of North America, AFL-CIO is not entitled by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act
to force Bechtel Construction, Inc. to assign the
disputed work to employees represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from this date, Construction
and General Laborers Local Union No. 721, a/w
Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 1 in writing whether it will refrain from
forcing the Employer, by means proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D), to assign the disputed work in a
manner inconsistent with this determination.