Leather Goods Workers Local 349 (Freeman Decorating)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 709 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

LEATHER GOODS WORKERS LOCAL 349 (FREEMAN DECORATING)
Brotherhood of Trade Show and Display Workers'
Union, Local 349, affiliated with Southern Joint
Board of ILGPNWU, AFL-CIO and Freeman
Decorating Company and International Alliance
of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Pic-
ture Operators of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO, Local No. 41. Case 10-
CD-307
30 September 1986
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
BABSON AND STEPHENS
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed 20 February 1986 by the Employer, alleging
that the Respondent, Brotherhood of Trade Show
and Display Workers' Union, Local 349, affiliated
with Southern Joint Board of ILGPNWU, AFL-
CIO (Display Workers), violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by
engaging in proscribed activity with an object of
forcing the Employer to assign certain work to em-
ployees it represents rather than to employees rep-
resented by International Alliance of Theatrical
Stage Employees and Motion Picture Operators of
the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO, Local
No. 41 (IATSE). The hearing was held 10 March
1986 before Hearing Officer Sandra Threadcraft.
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,
fmding them free from prejudicial error. On the
entire record , the Board makes the following find-
ings.
1. JURISDICTION
The Company, an Iowa corporation , is engaged
in providing trade show and exhibition services at
its facility in Atlanta, Georgia . During the 12
months prior to the hearing , the Company pur-
chased and received at its Atlanta, Georgia facility
$50,000 worth of goods directly from suppliers lo-
cated outside the State of Georgia. The parties stip-
ulate , and we find , that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act and that Display Workers and
IATSE are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The Company began operations in the Atlanta
area in 1979 , handling trade shows and conven-
281 NLRB No. 103
709
tions . The Company rents furniture, makes signs,
and provides displays and labor to exhibitors. The
work in dispute involves Modular Interlocking
Systems (MIS), which are rental displays owned by
the Company and made up in the Company 's ware-
house.' Employees represented by Display Work-
ers help design the MIS displays . They then pull
the parts out of stock in the warehouse , preassem-
ble the display in the warehouse,2 take it to the
show floor, and set it up. They maintain the dis-
play during the show and make any necessary re-
pairs or changes . At the close of the show they dis-
mantle the display, take the parts back to the ware-
house, and put them back in stock.
The disputed work also involves hanging signs
not attached to exhibits . The signs are shipped to
the Company in advance of the trade show. Ware-
house employees represented by Display Workers
open the signs and determine the materials and
equipment necessary to hang the signs . They go to
the facility and examine the locations from which
the signs are going to hang and ascertain whether
they have all the necessary equipment . They then
go back to the warehouse and do preriggings to
prepare the signs for installation . They also hang
the signs at the trade show.
In 1979, when the Company first began doing
business in Atlanta, employees represented by
IATSE performed the disputed work for 6 months
on a trial basis . This was not a satisfactory arrange-
ment , and it was terminated at the end of 6 months.
Since then , with limited exceptions , Display Work-
ers-represented employees have performed the dis-
puted work. The Company currently has collec-
tive-bargaining agreements with the Display Work-
ers and IATSE.
Pursuant to the Board 's 3 July 1986 Order Re-
opening Record , the parties entered into a stipula-
tion , with exhibit attached . The stipulation indi-
cates that in a letter to the Company dated 31 Jan-
uary 1986, Display Workers Representative Ernest
Newman stated that the Display Workers had
learned that IATSE had been pressuring the Com-
pany to assign the disputed work to employees
IATSE represents . Newman claimed the work for
Display Workers-represented employees and stated
that the Union would take "whatever action avail-
I Each MIS display is an interlocking system consisting of several hun-
dred different interconnecting pieces. Each display is different in con-
struction and design . Prefabricated itinerant displays , whose installation,
maintenance, and dismantling on the show floor by IATSE-represented
employees are not in dispute , are simpler in construction and consist of
large component parts . Prefabricated displays, unlike MIS displays, are
owned by the exhibitor, not the Company.
S The warehouse work performed by Display Workers- represented
employees is not in dispute.
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
able to us if necessary , including selected strikes
and picketing ," in order to keep this work.
B. Work in Dispute
The work in dispute , as amended at the hearing,
is the installing , maintaining , and dismantling of
company-owned rental displays and hanging signs
not attached to exhibits.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer , the Display Workers, and
IATSE stipulate that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8 (b)(4)(D) of the Act has been
violated by virtue of the Display Workers 31 Janu-
ary 1986 letter to the Employer.
The Employer contends that the disputed work
should be awarded to employees represented by
the Display Workers on the basis of Board certifi-
cations and collective -bargaining agreements, past
practice , area and industry practice, relative skills,
economy and efficiency of operations , employer
preference , and job impact.
The Display Workers contends that employees it
represents are entitled to perform the disputed
work because of its collective -bargaining agree-
ment with the Company and with the Company's
predecessor , Greyhound , and because employees it
represents have performed the work since 1978.
The Display Workers also argues that employees it
represents have the necessary skills to do the work.
IATSE contends that the work in dispute should
be awarded to employees it represents because of
its contract with the Company and because
IATSE-represented employees have performed the
work in the past . IATSE also argues that employ-
ees it represents are qualified to perform the work.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Upon learning that IATSE was pressuring the
Company to assign the disputed work to employees
it represents , by letter dated 31 January 1986, Dis-
play Workers Representative Ernest Newman
threatened to take whatever action is available to
the Display Workers, including selective strikes
and picketing , in order to keep the disputed work
for employees represented by the Display Workers.
It is undisputed that there is no agreed-upon
method for voluntary resolution of this dispute.
We find reasonable cause to believe that a viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and that
there exists no agreed method for voluntary adjust-
ment of the dispute within the meaning of Section
10(k) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the dis-
pute is properly before the Board for determina-
tion.
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. Certifications and collective -bargaining
agreements
There is no evidence that the Board has certified
either Union as the exclusive collective -bargaining
representative of the Employer's employees. How-
ever, in 1978 Display Workers was certified by the
Board as the collective -bargaining representative of
a unit of employees employed by Greyhound, the
Employer's predecessor.
The Employer has a collective -bargaining agree-
ment with Display Workers that expires in 1988
and with IATSE that expires in 1989 . Both agree-
ments arguably cover the disputed work.
Article 2, section 3 of the current agreement
with Display Workers states:
The work assigned to the bargaining unit
recognized herein includes the following:
Loading and unloading Company trucks
and/or rental trucks, and/or trucks selected by
exhibitors or others on their behalf; delivery of
rental exhibits components , furniture , carpet,
etc., or the unloading of same ; the laying of
carpet, skirting tables, all work with cloth,
hanging signs not attached to exhibits , install-
ing drapes , hanging or handling pipes, placing
furniture; all work performed for associations
or trade show or exhibition management; all
work of every kind relating to company-
owned rental equipment and displays, initial
placement of itinerant trade show exhibits in
assigned locations at trade show sites; the op-
eration of fork lifts and other equipment and
vehicles in the performance of previously de-
scribed work ; and, other related duties and ac-
tivities as assigned by the Company in connec-
tion with the business of the Company.
This provision also appeared in the Employer's col-
lective-bargaining agreement with Display Work-
ers, which was effective 10 February 1983 through
1 December 1985.
LEATHER GOODS WORKERS LOCAL 349 (FREEMAN DECORATING)
The Employer's agreement with IATSE, article
1, recognizes IATSE as the primary source of re-
ferrals for, inter alia,
Those employees who are engaged by the
Company to unpack, install , maintain , disman-
tle, and repack exhibits, displays, and booths.
This shall include all exhibits, displays, rental
units, European-style displays, and signs
(except aisle signs and Association signs), the
uncrating of machinery, and the operation of
machinery used in sign hanging and rigging.
However, article 3, section A of the IATSE agree-
ment also contains , inter alia, the following provi-
sions:
6. The Union recognizes the Company right
to the installation and dismantling of show
management-related equipment (not tradition-
ally handled by the Union) including counters,
entrance units, arches, show offices, exhibitor
service centers , general decorations , carpet,
aisle signs, items in conjunction with registra-
tion, or described as that work the Union under-
stands to be that of the Plastic and Novelty
Workers.3 [Emphasis added.]
9. The Company shall have the right to use
its designated employees for decorating work
to include temporary carpet laying , furniture,
talbe [sic] draperies , drapery hanging, show
management, sign hanging, drayage, rigging of
machinery with a forklift, general decorations,
and show management required work. [Em-
phasis added.]
Because both agreements arguably cover the dis-
puted work and there are no Board certifications
covering the Employer's employees, we find that
this factor does not favor an award of the disputed
work to employees represented by either Union.
2. Company preference and past practice
According to Louise Murray , the manager of the
Company's Atlanta Branch , the Company prefers
that Display Workers-represented employees per-
form the work . Murray testified that this was not
merely a preference , but was "vital to the company
itself."
Display Workers-represented employees have in
the past performed the disputed work, with only
two exceptions . When Freeman first opened the
Atlanta branch, it had a temporary trial agreement
with IATSE-represented employees to perform the
8 According to employee Ernie Prue , the Plastic and Novelty Workers
Local 349 recently changed its name to the Brotherhood of Trade Show
and Display Workers ' Union, Local 349.
711
disputed work. However, according to Murray,
this was not a satisfactory arrangement and it was
terminated at the end of 6 months. In June 1985
during a 3-day convention, IATSE-represented em-
ployees performed some of the disputed work
under the supervision of Display Workers-repre-
sented employees . This occurred because Display
Workers could not supply enough employees and
additional labor was required. IATSE-represented
employees have also been used as additional labor
to hang signs under the direction of Display Work-
ers-represented employees.
Thus, this factor favors an assignment of the dis-
puted work to Display Workers-represented em-
ployees.
3. Area and industry practice
Louise Murray testified that in the industry
every company is a little different and their con-
tracts are very different. Additionally, she testified
that in Miami and Orlando, Florida, the "Decora-
tors Union" sets up all rental displays and signs not
attached to exhibits. However , the record does not
reveal whether the Decorators Union is another
name for the Display Workers. No evidence of
area practice was presented . Therefore, this factor
does not favor an award of the disputed work to
employees represented by either Union.
4. Relative skills
According to Louise Murray, Display Workers-
represented employees are more familiar than
IATSE-represented employees with the trade show
sites where the exhibits are set up . For the hanging
of the signs, Display Workers-represented employ-
ees are more familiar with the strength of the
beams and the regulations of each facility . Display
Workers-represented employees are full-time em-
ployees of the Employer and are involved with the
display beginning in the warehouse . Thus, they are
familiar with the display when assembling and dis-
mantling it on the show floor. Display Workers-
represented employees are familiar with the metric
system and coding system for the pieces used in the
displays , as well as with blueprints . For sign hang-
ing, employees have to know how to operate lift
equipment . Employees represented by Display
Workers have the necessary skills to perform the
disputed work, and have been performing the work
since 1978.
IATSE-represented employees are not involved
with any of the pre-show work with the displays
or signs. The record does not establish that
IATSE-represented employees are as skilled in per-
forming the work as Display Workers-represented
employees . This factor favors an award of the dis-
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
puted work to Display Workers-represented em-
ployees.
5. Economy and efficiency of operations
Murray testified that it is more efficient for em-
ployees represented by Display Workers to per-
form the work in dispute. She testified that Display
Workers-represented employees do the pre-show
work in the warehouse as well as the work at the
trade show. The operation is more efficient because
the employees are familiar with the displays and
can set them up and dismantle them faster. Prob-
lems are sometimes discovered during the pre-show
stages at the warehouse that must be corrected at
the trade show, and Display Workers-represented
employees are able to solve such problems. On the
other hand, IATSE-represented employees are ob-
tained through a hiring hall. Thus, the Company
never knows the qualifications or skills of such em-
ployees or whether they will appear. According to
Murray, IATSE-represented employees also per-
form stage and theatrical work for other employers
and are sometimes unavailable for a trade show.
The IATSE-represented employees are not in-
volved in the pre-show work on the exhibits. Thus,
supervision by Display Workers-represented em-
ployees would be necessary for the work to be
done adequately at the trade show. The IATSE-
represented employees have never seen the display
before and do not know how to set it up.
Employees represented by Display Workers are
at the show site performing other duties during the
course of a trade show. If repairs or modifications
on an exhibit are necessary , Display Workers-rep-
resented employees are already at the site. Because
they are familiar with the exhibit, it is not neces-
sary to send the exhibit back to the warehouse for
repairs . According to Murray, if IATSE-represent-
ed employees did the repairs and modifications, the
Company would be required to call the hiring hall
and wait until an employee arrived. The Company
would have to pay the employee at least 4 hours of
pay, even if the repair took 10 minutes. Under the
current practice, when a repair is necessary, it is
performed by a Display Workers-represented em-
ployee already on the site.
Because time is of the essence in the Employer's
operation, the repacking of company-owned rental
displays at the end of the show must be performed
by an employee who knows which parts are
needed for the next show. Display Workers-repre-
sented employees employed by the Employer are
more familiar with the repacking process.
Regarding the hanging signs not attached to ex-
hibits, it is also more efficient for the same employ-
ee to do both the pre-show work and the work at
the show. According to Ernie Prue, familiarity
with the signs obtained through pre-show work re-
duces to less than half the time required to hang
the sign at the show.
Accordingly, this factor favors an award of the
work in dispute to employees represented by Dis-
play Workers.
6. Job impact
Murray testified that if the disputed work were
awarded to IATSE-represented employees, the
Company would be required to lay off 50 employ-
ees represented by Display Workers. The Compa-
ny would be required to hire IATSE-represented
employees to do the warehouse work that Display
Workers-represented employees are currently
doing. This would be necessary because of the
Company's approach in which the warehouse
workers who assist in the pre-show design, fabrica-
tion, assembly, dismantling, testing, and packing
work also do the work at the trade show.
Because the disputed work is currently being
performed by Display Workers-represented em-
ployees, a continuation of this practice would have
no affect on the jobs of IATSE-represented em-
ployees. Accordingly, this factor favors an award
of the work in dispute to employees represented by
Display Workers.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we
conclude that employees represented by Brother-
hood of Trade Show and Display Workers' Union,
Local 349, affiliated with Southern Joint Board of
ILGPNWU, AFL-CIO are entitled to perform the
work in dispute. We reach this conclusion relying
on company preference and past practice, relative
skills, economy and efficiency of operations, and
job impact . In making this determination, we are
awarding the work to employees represented by
Display Workers, not to that Union or its members.
The determination 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.
Employees of Freeman Decorating Company
represented by Brotherhood of Trade Show and
Display Workers' Union, Local 349, affiliated with
Southern Joint Board of ILGPNWU, AFL-CIO
are entitled to perform the installing, maintaining,
and dismantling of company-owned rental displays
and hanging signs not attached to exhibits.