Local 450

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 25, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 135 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

LOCAL 450 135
Objection 8: As the Employer does not except to the Regional
Director's recommendation that this objection be overruled, we adopt
his recommendation. Inasmuch as we agree with the Regional
Director that the Employer's objections should be overruled, we will
certify the Petitioner as representative of the Employer's employees.
[The Board certified International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers, AFL-CIO,
as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the Em-
ployer's production and maintenance employees in the unit found
appropriate.]
Local 450, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-
CIO and The Austin Company. Case No. 39-CD-f4. October 25,
1957
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE
OF HEARING
On April 1, 1957, The Austin Company filed a charge with the
Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, alleging that Local 450,
International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections
102.71 and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director investigated the charge and provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice. The hearing was held at Houston, Texas,
from May 28 to 31, 1957, before Edwin Youngblood, hearing officer.
All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing
officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, and upon consideration of the
briefs filed by the parties, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Austin Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. Local 450, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. Austin was a member of Construction Employers Association of
Texas on August 31, 1955, when the latter association entered into a
contract with the Union, effective initially until April 30, 1958. The-
119 NLRB No. 18.
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contract, like its predecessor, contained the following provision,
known as section 20 (g) of the Working Conditions:
Where plant steam or air is used on a job, a Light Equipment
Operator shall be employed.
The contract also provided that in the event a "jurisdictional dispute"
arose, the dispute should be settled in accordance with the practice of
the Building and Construction Trades Department or the National
Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes.
On or about March 4, 1957, during the term of this contract, Austin
was engaged in a certain job at the Freeport (Texas) plant of Dow
Chemical Co. In connection with the job, Austin used compressed
air obtained from Dow's plant lines. The plant-line valves, known
as headers, were turned on and off by Dow's employees, at Dow's
insistence, and therefore Austin had no need for any employees of its
own to perform this work. The Union nevertheless demanded that
Austin abide by section 20 (g) and employ operators, a demand Austin
rejected. The Union accordingly caused other employees of Austin
to engage in a strike. The strike was terminated 4 days later, on
March 8, when Austin replaced its compressed-air equipment with
equipment operated by electricity.
On or about April 1, 1957, likewise during the term of the contract
and while still engaged on the Dow job, Austin used steam obtained
from Dow's plant lines. As with the compressed air, the header valves
were operated by Dow's employees. The Union demanded that Austin
nevertheless comply with section 20 (g) and employ operators. The
record further shows that the Union suggested to Austin that it could
insert a pipe and valve between the header valve operated by Dow's
employees and the particular piece of Austin's steam-activated equip-
ment, thus providing a valve to be turned on and off by the operator.
Austin refused the Union's demand, whereupon the Union caused
other employees of Austin to engage in a strike. The strike termi-
nated later that month, on April 25, after a hearing in a United
States district court on the Regional Director's petition, later granted,
for an injunction against the Union under Section 10 (1).
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Austin contends that an object of the Union's strikes was to force
it to assign the work of operating Dow's plant or header valves to
its own operators, who came within the coverage of the Union's con-
tract, rather than have the work done by Dow's employees. Austin
further contends that the contract does not constitute an assignment
of such work for the simple reason that the work was not Austin's to
assign.
The Union contends that its sole object in striking was to force
Austin to comply with section 20 (g) of the contract and employ
operators where plant steam or air was used.
S & S AUTO PARTS CO. OF WISCONSIN, INC.
APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE
137
Section 10 (k) of the Act generally empowers and directs the Board
to hear and determine disputes over an employer's assignment of
"particular work" to one group of employees rather than another.
However, the Board is not authorized to hear and determine other
types of disputes. The present dispute, involving Austin's refusal
to employ operators while using Dow's plant steam or air, clearly
does not involve Austin's assignment of particular work to certain
employees rather than others. The record is clear that Austin had
no control or authority over the operation of plant steam or air valves,
and thus had no authority to assign this particular work to any
employees whatsoever. It is therefore not the type of dispute which,
the Board is authorized to hear and determine. We find that the dis-
pute between Austin and the Union does not involve the assignment
of particular work, within the meaning of Section 10 (k), but rather
involves Austin's voluntary contractual commitment to employ a
light-equipment operator where plant steam or air is used on a job.
We find that in striking Austin the Union did not have a pro-
scribed object within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D). Accord-
ingly, we find that we are without authority to determine the pres-
ent dispute, and shall grant the Union's motion to quash the notice
of hearing issued in this proceeding.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and RODGERS took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing.
S & S Auto Parts Co. of Wisconsin, Inc. and Lodge 621, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner
S & S Auto Parts , Petitioner and Retail Clerks Union Local 1116,
AFL-CIO and International Association of Machinists, AFL-
CIO. Cases Nos. 18-RC-3343 and 18-RM-264. October 25, 1957
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
William D. Boetticher, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and
Jenkins] .
119 NLRB No. 21.