Lathers Union Local 104

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 365 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

LATHERS UNION LOCAL 104 365
Lathers Union Local 104, The Wood , Wire and Metal
Lathers International Union , AFL-CIO and Asso-
ciated General Contractors of America, Inc.,
Seattle Northwest Chapter ( The Blaine Petty
Company) and Acoustical Workers Local 1982,
affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case
19-CD-159
October 31, 1970
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following
a Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) charge filed on March
30, 1970, by Associated General Contractors of
America, Inc., Seattle, Northwest Chapter.' The
charge alleged that on or about March 30, 1970,
Lathers Union Local 104, The Wood, Wire and Metal
Lathers International Union, AFL-CIO,2 engaged in
picketing with an object of forcing or requiring The
Blaine Petty Company 3 to assign the work of
installing hangers and black iron channels for ceiling
systems on the Washington Athletic Club remodeling
project located at 1325 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Wash-
ington , to members of the Lathers rather than to
members of the Acoustical Workers Local 1982,
affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO.4
A hearing was held at Seattle, Washington, on July
1 and 2, 1970, before Hearing Officer James M.
Kennedy. All parties appeared at the hearing and all
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to produce
evidence bearing on the issues . Thereafter, the
Employer and the Lathers filed briefs in support of
their positions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds them free from
prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the
entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board makes the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The parties stipulated that The Blaine Petty Compa-
ny is a State of Washington corporation with its
principal place of business at Issaquah, Washington,
where it is engaged in the business of installing ceiling
systems in the construction industry. During the last
fiscal year in the course of business, the Employer
purchased and received goods valued in excess of
$50,000 which were shipped from points outside the
State of Washington directly to the Employer at
points within the State of Washington. We find that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties have stipulated, and we find, that
Lathers Union Local 104, The Wood, Wire and Metal
Lathers International Union, AFL-CIO, and Acous-
tical Workers Local 1982, affiliated with United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Since 1962, when the company was founded, the
Employer has been engaged in business as a contrac-
tor primarily involved with the installation of acousti-
cal ceilings. Generally employing about 60 employees,
the Employer is responsible for approximately 60
percent of the acoustical ceiling work done in King
County, Washington.5 Throughout this time, the
Employer has followed the custom and practice of
other local ceiling contractors and, accordingly, it has
always employed members of the Acoustical Workers
to fulfill its commitments .6 Thus, the Employer
currently has a collective-bargaining agreement,
r Hereinafter referred to as the AGC. This employer- association is the
collective-bargaining agent for The Blaine Petty Company.
2 Hereinafter referred to as the Lathers.
3 Hereinafter referred to as the Employer.
4 Hereinafter referred to as the Acoustical Workers.
5 In addition to the Washington Athletic Club project out of which the
instant dispute arose , the Employer is presently working on the King
County Administration Building project , Seattle , Washington. With regard
to this project, also, the Employer has been notified (by letter dated May
13, 1970, from the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional
Disputes) that the Lathers intend to claim the same work on that project as
disputed herein.
6 The parties stipulated that , for the last 5 years , at least 90 percent of
the installation of hangers and black iron channels for ceiling systems in
King County has been done by workmen who are members of the
Acoustical Workers. They further stipulated that, for the purposes of this
dispute , any period in excess of 5 years and any percentage in excess of 90
percent are not relevant.
186 NLRB No. 70
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
effective February 15, 1968, to June 1, 1971, with the
Acoustical Workers.? The Employer has no collec-
tive-bargaining agreements with any other labor
organizations,8 and all of its employees are members
of the Acoustical Workers or, occasionally, other
carpenter union affiliates.
In line with this general operating procedure, when
the Employer began work on the Washington Athletic
Club job sometime prior to March 1970 it employed
members of the Acoustical Workers only for all
aspects of the ceiling remodeling. On March 27, 1970,
the Lathers' business manager telephoned the AGC's
labor relations director and stated that, with respect to
this particular job, the Employer was doing work
(specifically, the installation of hangers and black iron
channels) through Acoustical Workers that properly
should be done through the Lathers .9 After checking
the matter, the AGC labor relations director called
the Lathers and advised that the work did belong to
the Acoustical Workers and there was no reason to
suggest to the Employer that the work assignment be
changed.
On the following Monday morning, March 30, 1970,
the Lathers picketed the Washington Athletic Club
job with a sign saying:
Blaine Petty and Carpenters Dist. Council refuses
to comply with decisions of Nal. Joint
Board-Lathers Local 104.
Although the Employer did not have any of its
employees working at that time, craftsmen employed
by other contractors refused to perform their jobs and
a work stoppage ensued . Later in the day, representa-
tives of the AGC and the Lathers unsuccessfully tried
to resolve the problem, but they did reach an
agreement that the picket would be removed any time
As indicated , supra this contract was negotiated in the Employer's
behalf by the AGC.
The agreement provides at article 11 -Territory and Work Covered: "(b)
The work covered by this Agreement shall be as outlined in the General
Constitution and Laws of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America and approved by the AFL-CIO, National Building Trades
AFL-CIO decisions of record, Green Book decisions, agreements between
International Unions, local awards and area practice."
It also provides at article V-Settlement of Disputes and Grievances:
"Jurisdictional disputes shall be handled by local methods agreed to by the
AGC Chapter and the local union or District Council in the area where the
dispute occurs in the following manner; based on decisions of record,
agreements and decisions of record as complied [sic I in the Green Book,
area practice and/or an agreement agreed to by contesting parties and the
employer . If this method does not adjudicate the dispute, it shall be
handled by methods jointly agreed to by the National Associated General
Contractors and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America."
a The parties have in fact stipulated that at no time during the past 5
years has there been any contractual arrangement between the Lathers and
the AGC on the one hand, or the Lathers and the Employer on the other.
9 The Lathers claim to the work was based upon a decision by the
National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes which was
issued August 24, 1966, litigated to the Supreme Court, and reaffirmed
effective January 15, 1968. (All parties stipulated that the Joint Board was
disbanded September 30, 1969 , and reconstituted in October 1969, on an
the Employer was not actually working on the
project.10 The AGC filed a Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(D) charge this same day.
Thereafter, by letter dated April 15, 1970, from the
Joint Board, the Employer was informed that the
Lathers and Carpenters Internationals had agreed
that the disputed work was governed by the decision
referred to earlier (supra, fn. 9) and, therefore, Lathers
should be assigned to install hangers and black iron
channels on the Washington Athletic Club project. In
a series of letters and telegrams exchanged throughout
the first part of May 1970, the Acoustical Workers
was directed by its International to comply with the
Joint Board determination. Finally, the Acoustical
Workers renounced its claim to the work in a letter
dated June 2, 1970, to the Lathers. A copy of this letter
was forwarded (June 4, 1970) by the Lathers to the
Regional Director for Region 19, Charles M. Hender-
son, with a request that the Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(D) charge be dismissed in view of the fact that the
Acoustical Workers no longer claimed any jurisdic-
tion over the work in question.
Pursuant to the long-followed Board holding that
an employer must be a party to any settlement
agreement before an 8(b)(4)(D) charge can be
dismissed, the Regional Director denied the Lathers'
dismissal request. The Acoustical Workers officially
conveyed to the Employer its renunciation of the
black iron channel work in a meeting with the
Employer on June 19, 1970, just prior to the hearing
on July 1 and 2, 1970.
B. The Work in Dispute
The dispute arises from competing claims by the
Acoustical Workers, as the bargaining representative
for the Employer's employees, and the Lathers to the
interim basis. In late February 1970, the Joint Board was permanently
reestablished.)
The decision states, in pertinent part , " I. The decision of this Hearings
Panel is limited to the jurisdictional disputes of work assignments in
controversy between lathers and carpenters involved in the installation of
ceiling systems . .. 4. The following types of ceiling systems are included
in this paragraph: Direct Hung Suspension System ; Attached Concealed
System without Backing Board ; Furring Bar Attached System ; Furring Bar
Suspension System ; Indirect Hung Suspension System or similar systems.
(a) The installation of the 1 - 1/2 inch channel or similar carrying channel
and hangers in any of the above types of systems shall be performed by
lathers. (b) The installation of all other work , including the installation of a
ceiling system in its entirety if no 1-1/2 inch channel or other carrying
channel is used, shall be performed by carpenters."
Both the Lathers and the Acoustical Workers, as an affiliate of the
Carpenters International, were parties to and are bound by this decision.
Neither the AGC nor the Employer was a party to this decision, and
neither the AGC national organization not the Seattle Northwest Chapter
has been a party to the Joint Board since its disbandment in September
1969. The Employer , however, is bound to Joint Board decisions in some
circumstances through its contract with the Acoustical Workers (see supra,
fn. 7).
10 The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Northern Division , granted a temporary injunction, April 30,
1970, prohibiting all picketing until final disposition of the instant dispute.
LATHERS UNION LOCAL 104
work of installing hangers and black iron channels for
ceiling systems in new and remodeled buildings.
Specifically, the record indicates that this includes the
placement of inserts-when black iron channels are to
be used-in a new structural ceiling or in an existing
ceiling from which a ceiling system is to be dropped;
the attachment of hangers, usually wire, to the inserts
above; and, the attachment of black iron channels,
sometimes referred to as "C" type carrying channels,
to the hangers. Black iron channels, while most often
used at a 1-1 /2 inch width, may be used at 3/4 inch, 1
inch, and 2 inch widths. The term "black iron
channel," as the subject of dispute herein, is meant to
include all of these sizes.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
1. The Employer (Charging Party AGC): At the
outset, the Employer notes that there is an active
dispute before the Board in this case regardless of any
alleged "agreement" between the Lathers and the
Acoustical Workers because it was not a party to such
"agreement." On the merits, the Employer prefers
that the work in question be assigned to members of
the Acoustical Workers. Its position rests on the
collective-bargaining agreement between it and the
Acoustical Workers; company and practices; relative
skills, economy and efficiency of operations; and the
maintenance of a stable and effective work force.
2. The Lathers: The Lathers maintains that the
Board has no jurisdiction in this case and, therefore,
the charge should be dismissed. On this point, it cites
the recent United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia case, Plasterers Local 79 v.
N.L. R. B. (Southwestern Construction Co.)," in which
the Court held that the Board may not ignore an
agreement between two unions to settle a jurisdiction-
al dispute through the construction industry's Joint
Board even though the employer has not agreed also
to be bound by such action. The Court interprets
Section 10(k) of the Act to mean that rival unions are
the only parties to a jurisdictional dispute.
3. The Acoustical Workers: Until June 2, 1970, the
Acoustical Workers claimed the disputed work
primarily because, in terms of area practice and the
practice of the Employer, its members have always
performed this work. After June 2, 1970, it states that
the matter has been taken out of its hands by the
Carpenters International which has disclaimed juris-
diction over the disputed work as a result of the Joint
Board's determination.
11 440 F 2d 174 (C.A.D C.), denied enforcement 172 NLRB No 77, see
also 167 NLRB 185.
12 See the dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge MacKinnon in
D. Applicability of the Statute
367
Before the Board proceeds with a determination of
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.
The record shows, and the Lathers does not deny,
that on March 27, 1970, its representative sought and
demanded from the Employer the assignment of
lathers rather than acoustical workmen to do the work
of installing inserts, hangers, and black iron channels
on the Washington Athletic Club remodeling project
in Seattle. When the request was denied, the Lathers
proceeded to establish a picket at the jobsite which
resulted in a work stoppage by all crafts on March 30,
1970.
Accordingly, we conclude that, on the basis of the
entire record, there is reasonable cause to believe a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred, and that
the dispute is properly before the Board for determi-
nation under Section 10(k) of the Act.
However, before considering the merits of this
dispute, we note that the Lathers defense herein is that
the Regional Director erred in not dismissing the
charge prior to the hearing because the parties had
agreed upon a voluntary method of adjustment of the
dispute. It argues that the term "parties" as used in
Section 10(k) does not mean the employer and two
unions or groups of employees claiming the work in
dispute need agree upon a method of voluntary
adjustment of the dispute for the Board to quash the
notice of hearing, but only that the two unions or
groups of employees must so agree. Since the Lathers
and the Acoustical Workers are both subject to the
Joint Board's jurisdiction, the argument concludes
that the notice of hearing should have been quashed.
With due respect for the opinion of a majority of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals in support of
this position, as recently announced in Southwestern
Construction (supra, fn. 11), we continue to adhere to
our longstanding and consistent position 12 that
Section 10(k) must be interpreted to mean that the
employer controlling the work assignment, as well as
the rival unions or groups of employees involved,
comprise the "parties to such dispute," and all must
approve and enter into a voluntary settlement
procedure in order to preclude a hearing and
determination pursuant to that Section.13 Finally, we
note that the Board's interpretation of this aspect of
Section 10(k) was neither questioned nor disturbed
when the National Labor Relations Act was most
Southwestern Construction (cited supra)
13 For an extensive compilation of Board's cases in point , see fn I in
Judge MacKinnon's dissenting opinion noted above.
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recently amended by Congress in 1959. Accordingly,
we find no merit in this contention of the Lathers.14
E. Merits of the Dispute
In the CBS case,15 the Supreme Court charged the
Board with the "responsibility and duty to decide
which of two or more employee groups claiming the
right to perform certain work tasks is right and then
specifically to award such tasks in accordance with its
decision." Pursuant to the mandate, the Board in the
J. A. Jones case 16 stated that it would thenceforth
determine the proper assignment of disputed work
only after taking into account and balancing all
relevant factors. The following factors are asserted in
support of the claims of the parties herein.
1. Collective-bargaining agreement
Since the Acoustical Workers Local involved in this
case was chartered in 1952, the record reveals that it
has enjoyed a more than satisfactory bargaining
relationship with the Employer and with other King
County, Washington, employers in the business of
installing ceiling systems. All of the employers have
almost exclusively used acoustical workers in their
business . The Employer's work force is no exception,
being at most times wholly comprised of. these
workers. As stipulated by the parties, for the last 5
years, there has never been any kind of bargaining
relationship between the Lathers and the Employer
and/or the AGC.
The current contract covering the Employer's work
force was entered into by the Employer (represented
by the AGC) and by the Acoustical Workers
(represented by the Carpenters International) on
February 21, 1968. While that agreement provides
that the work covered shall be, inter alia, "Green Book
decisions, "17 and also that settlement of jurisdictional
disputes shall be based on, inter alia, "decisions of
record as complied [sic] in the Green Book" (supra, fn.
7), both provisions also base work covered and
dispute settlement on "area practice." Because this
agreement was entered into approximately 18 months
after the issuance of the "Green Book" decision on
the installation of ceiling systems (supra, fn. 9), and
also more than I month after its January 15, 1968,
effective date, we cannot find, nor does the Acoustical
14 We also note that the record is not altogether clear as to whether the
Joint Board decision actually does determine the entire dispute between the
Lathers and the Acoustical Workers. The disputed work in this case is
defined as simply "hangers and black iron channels" whereas the Joint
Board decision speaks of " 1-1/2 inch channel or similar carrying channel
and hangers" (see supra, fn. 9). While the record shows agreement between
the unions as to what "black iron channel" and "1 - 1/2 inch channel mean
(and it is the same ), it does not reveal a precise and agreed to definition of
..or similar carrying channel."
rs N.L.R.B. v. Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local
1212, International Brotherhood ofElectrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Columbia
Workers Local herein argue otherwise, that this
contract was meant to establish Joint Board decisions
as the controlling factors in these two provisions. On
the contrary, we conclude that such factors are simply
one of a number of factors to be considered, with the
"area practice" factor especially relevant to this
dispute as discussed infra.
Therefore, we do not find the sole collective-
bargaining agreement between parties to this dispute
as controlling.
2. Company and industry practices
In addition to the fact that the record points to the
utilization of acoustical workers for practically all
work in connection with the installation of suspended
acoustical ceilings in King County, Washington, the
parties have stipulated, with specific reference to the
type of work which gave rise to this dispute, that for
the last 5 years at least 90 percent of it has been done
by members of the Acoustical Workers. Furthermore,
any period in excess of 5 years and any percentage in
excess of 90 percent were also stipulated to be
unimportant for the purposes of this case. It is also
established that the Employer herein is responsible for
60 percent of all the ceiling systems work in the
county.
The record is silent as to construction industry
practice in other areas of the country in terms of the
disputed work, or in terms of all acoustical ceiling
work. It is clear that prior to March 1970, in King
County, there was never any objection from the
Lathers concerning the use of acoustical workers for
any part of the suspended ceiling installation process.
In view of these considerations, we find that
company and industry practices favor the Acoustical
Workers.
3. Relative skills, economy and efficiency of
operations
The "black iron" channel disputed herein is only
one of a number of types of carrying channels used for
suspended ceilings .18 As previously found, members
of the Acoustical Workers have for years been
engaged in the installation of all of these kinds of
carrying channels. Overall, ceiling installation work
requires experience and skill because it involves the
Broadcasting System), 364 U.S. 573, 586.
16 International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, AFL-CIO (J.
A. Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB 1402.
17 The "Green Book" refers to a publication by the Building and
Construction Trades Department , AFL-CIO, which contains the Plan for
Settling Jurisdictional Disputes Nationally and Locally, and Agreements
and Decisions Rendered Affecting the Building Industry. The decision
(supra, In. 9) relied on by the Lathers in this case is included in the book.
ra The most common other types are the "H -bar" and "T-bar" iron
channels which are silver in color.
LATHERS UNION LOCAL 104
use of finished precut materials and difficulties are
commonly encountered since it is necessary to
accomodate a particular ceiling system and its
components to electrical and mechanical layouts
already established. Of particular importance in the
area of experience and skill, too, is the fact that the
finished ceiling must maintain a proper and uniform
height, and this is directly related to the lengths at
which each wire hanger is set when attached to ceiling
inserts and then the overall result when the specific
type of carrying channel is attached to the hanger.
The amount of adjustment required after the ceiling
panels are attached to the carrying channel in order to
arrive at a finished ceiling of uniform and proper
height is directly related to the degree of skill
possessed by the worker in carrying out each phase of
the entire operation. While it is not disputed that
Lathers could, with relative ease , perfect the basic skill
involved in placing ceiling inserts and attaching
hangers and black iron carrying channels, it is
apparent that it will take some time for lathers to
perfect the kind of skill and precision which, over the
years, the acoustical workers have developed in
producing satisfactory finished suspended ceilings.
Finally, there is another aspect of experience and skill
which weighs in favor of the acoustical workers.
Although ceiling work in new buildings ordinarily
proceeds according to blueprint plans and specifica-
tions , blueprints are rarely available when remodeling
work is done on older buildings. In these instances,
which account for approximately 25 percent of the
Employer's business, workmen customarily do their
jobs on the basis of verbal instructions and specifica-
tions. Clearly, past experience becomes an invaluable
asset in these circumstances, and the average number
of years in the business for the Employer's usual work
force of 60 men is about 12 years.
It must be kept in mind that we are concerned here
with a small aspect of ceiling installation work. The
Employer has estimated that, of the total installation
process of any given ceiling, only about 10 to 15
percent of the completed job was devoted to the
supporting members (inserts-hangers-carrying chan-
nels). Moreover, black iron channel, while the
cheapest to install, is not the type of carrying channel
most often used; the Employer estimates that only
about 2 to 3 percent of its total manhours is devoted to
its installation. There is another feature of carrying
channel installation that is pertinent here. Although it
might seem as though the three disputed installation
steps would follow in continuous sequence, this is not
the case. Assuming that the disputed work is per-
formed by lathers, after inserts are placed, other work
would usually be done and, particularly, wall molding
369
would be attached by acoustical workers because it
determines ceiling height. Hangers and carrying
channel would be attached next by lathers, and then
acoustical workers would take over again to put the
finished acoustical panels in place. If the ceiling was
not level, as is usually so, hangers and carrying
channel would have to be adjusted. In the instant
dispute, lathers claim this adjustment operation if
black iron channel is used. If the work assignment
remains as it now is, acoustical workers would
perform all phases of this operation. Obviously, to
break up into segments and assign to two different
employee groups what is logically and what has in fact
always been a continuous job operation will result in
increased job manhours, increased lost-time man-
hours, and higher overall costs. The Employer has
added that such a job differentiation is likely to result
in an extremely uncertain situation in terms of ever
determining in advance the time and cost for a given
job. This is because, since all of the types of carrying
channel serve the same function and are generally
interchangeable, except that black iron is cheaper, the
type of channel used on a job is frequently changed
during the course of construction. Such a change was
actually made on the Washington Athletic Club
project.
Therefore, we find that the factors of skill, economy,
and efficiency of operations also favor the Acoustical
Workers claim to the work.
4. Gain or loss of employment
The Employer has developed an essentially stable
work force of approximately 60 acoustical workers.
These employees, for the most part, have retained
their jobs for long periods of time without frequent
layoffs and referrals back to the hiring hall. The
Employer testified that the award of even so limited a
part of their current duties to lathers will necessitate
laying off some of the now full-time employed
acoustical workers.
Despite the record evidence that lathers presently
have an unemployment rate in King County of about
10 to 20 percent,19 the work requested herein would
provide only 2 to 3 percent of the Employer 's total
manhours. Moreover, this would not be steady
employment such as the Employer is able to provide
to acoustical workers, but the Employer would only
be calling on lathers for black iron installation as job
needs arose.
We conclude that a finding herein that the Lathers
are entitled to the disputed work would not result in a
particularly significant gain in employment opportu-
nities for its members. But, such an award would
19 There is no indication as to how this rate compares with that of the
whole construction industry, or with that of other King County industries
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
apparently bring about a loss of full -time employment
for some of the Employer 's trained and experienced
acoustical workmen . Therefore , we do not find that
the employment factor favors the Lathers.
CONCLUSIONS
Upon the entire record in this case and the
foregoing consideration of all relevant factors, in
particular the factors of company and industry
practices , relative skills , economy, and efficiency of
operations , we conclude that employees of the
Employer who are represented by the Acoustical
Workers are entitled to the work in question, and we
shall determine the dispute in their favor . We do not,
however , award the work to the Acoustical Workers
or its members.
Prior to the hearing in this case , on May 28, 1970,
the Employer filed a motion that has been referred to
the Board to extend the scope of the proceeding to
include not only the designated work at the Washing-
ton Athletic Club remodeling project but also to all
similar work done by the Employer within King
County, Washington . Since , in light of all the
foregoing , there is a strong probability that similar
disputes involving the Lathers may occur in the
future , we hold that the determination in this case
applies not only to the job in which the dispute arose
but also to all similar work done in King County,
Washington, by the Employer.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , and upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and the entire record in this
proceeding , the National Labor Relations Board
hereby makes the following determination of dispute:
Employees of The Blaine Petty Company, Issaquah,
Washington, who are currently represented by Acous-
tical Workers Local 1982, affiliated with United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, are entitled to install inserts, hangers, and
black iron channels for ceiling systems in King
County, Washington.