Local 424, International Association Of Bridge, Structural And Ornamental Iron Workers, Afl-Cio

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 26, 1989

293 N.L.R.B. 852 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

852 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 424, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Ikon Workers, AFL-
CIO and Overhead Door 'Company of West-
chester, a Division of Overhead Door Company
of Norwalk , Inc and Local 210, United Broth-
erhood of Carpenters and Joiners of North
America , AFL-CIO Case 34-CD-35
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed September 16, 1988, by the Employer, alleg-
ing that the Respondent, Local 424, International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Local 424) violated Sec-
tion 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
employees it represents rather than to employees
represented by the District Council of Carpenters
of Westchester County (District Council) The
hearing was held October 20, 1988, before Hearing
Officer Michael C Cass
The National Relations Board has delegated 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
I JURISDICTION
The Company, a Connecticut corporation, is en-
gaged in the assembly and installation of overhead
doors with an office in Elmsford, New York,
where it has, in the past year, purchased and re-
ceived goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points outside New York 1
The Employer and Local 424 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 Local 424 is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 2
1 We note that the record indicates that the Employer annually put
chases and receives at its New York location goods valued in excess of
$50000 from points located outside the State of New York Therefore
we find that the Employer s operations satisfy the Boards direct inflow
standards for nonretail enterprises as set forth in Siemons Mailing Service
122 NLRB 81 (1958)
2 The parties also stipulate that Local 210 United Brotherhood of Car
penters and Joiners of North America AFL-CIO (Local 210) is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act Local 210 was listed on the
notice of hearing but attended only part of the hearing Local 210 did
II THE DISPUTE
A Background and Facts of Dispute
The Employer was hired as a subcontractor to
install sectional aluminum and rolling steel doors at
a Bridgeport, Connecticut worksite The doors are
heavy and made for industrial use The Employer's
own carpenter employees, who are represented by
the District Council, install the doors They travel
to the different worksites, usually in New York and
Connecticut, to install and service the doors
While unloading the sectional aluminum doors at
the Bridgeport site, the employees represented by
the District Council were approached by a Local
424 steward He asked to see their union cards and
eventually told them he could not stop them from
working that day
Approximately 2 weeks later, at this same work-
site, one of the carpenters represented by the Dis-
trict Council was briefly working alone Two
Local 424 stewards and about 18 ironworkers came
into the room and surrounded him The ironwork
ers claimed the work was theirs and that the car-
penter should not be doing it The ironworkers re-
inforced these statements by saying that something
might fall on the carpenter's head One of the stew
ards said he would not be able to control what his
ironworkers did to the carpenter or his equipment
Another carpenter represented by the District
Council appeared during this incident As a result
of the actions of the ironworkers, both carpenters
ceased work and left the jobsite
The Employer is party to a collective-bargaining
agreement with the United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America and to a special agree-
ment with the District Council of Carpenters of
Westchester County Both of these documents
were submitted into evidence Pursuant to the
terms of the special agreement, the District Council
represents the Employer's carpenter employees
Local 424 did not present any evidence that it
has a collective bargaining agreement with the Em-
ployer
B Work in Dispute
The original notice of hearing stated that the
work in dispute was the installation of rolling steel
doors At the hearing, the Employer attempted to
broaden the scope to include the installation of sec
tional aluminum doors Although Local 424 would
not stipulate that both types of doors were in dis
pute, it maintained that its work included the two
types of doors and it submitted evidence in support
not submit a brief and there is no evidence that it represents the Employ
er s employees
293 NLRB No 103
IRON WORKERS LOCAL 424 (OVERHEAD DOOR)
of that position At the hearing, the Employer pre-
sented evidence that its work included the installa-
tion of both types of doors and the Employer
maintains that position in its brief The employees
represented by the District Council are engaged in
installing both types of doors The record as a
whole convinces us that the disputed work in-
volves the installation of sectional aluminum and
rolling steel doors at the Employer's Bridgeport,
Connecticut worksite
C Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that the work in dispute
should be assigned to the employees represented by
the District Council on the basis of the Employer's
practice and preference, the skills involved, indus-
try practice, and safety The Employer requests a
broad areawide award covering parts of New York
and Connecticut
In its posthearing brief, Local 424 contends that
it should be awarded the work based on a purport-
ed interunion agreement Local 424 requests that
the scope of the award be restricted to the Bridge-
port, Connecticut site
D Applicability of the Statute
Two Local 424 stewards and approximately 18
ironworkers surrounded a lone carpenter represent-
ed by the District Council at the Bridgeport, Con-
necticut worksite The ironworkers claimed the
work the carpenter was performing They also
threatened that something might fall and hit the
carpenter on the head A Local 424 steward then
said he would not be able to control what his men
did We find the object of these actions was to
force the Employer to assign the disputed work to
ironworkers represented by Local 424 See Sheet
Metal Workers Local 41 (B& W Metals), 231 NLRB
122 (1977), Carpenters Local 67 (Aberthaw Construc-
tion), 208 NLRB 289 (1974)
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 of
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
853
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 the dispute
1 Certifications and collective bargaining
agreements
The Employer and Local 424 stipulated at the
hearing that there are no Board certifications re-
garding the disputed work
The Employer has a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America and has a special agree-
ment with the District Council However, neither
agreement specifically refers to the work in dis
pute Accordingly, we find that this factor does not
favor awarding the work to either group of em-
ployees
2 Company preference and past practice
The Employer has assigned the disputed work to
employees represented by the District Council and
maintains a preference for that assignment Accord-
ingly, we find this factor favors awarding the dis
puted work to employees represented by the Dis
tact Council
3 Industry practice
The evidence presented by the Employer is in-
sufficient to establish what the prevailing practice
in the industry is with regard to the assignment of
work similar to the disputed work No evidence
was presented that any employer has used employ-
ees represented by Local 424 to perform this kind
of work Therefore, industry practice does not
favor awarding the work to either group of em
ployees
4 Skills
The Employer uses its own skilled employees,
who are represented by the District Council These
employees have on-the-job experience that the Em
ployer testified is necessary to develop the required
skills In addition, based on their work experience,
the employees have modified their equipment spe-
cifically for the tasks involved Local 424 failed to
present evidence showing that employees it repre-
sents possess a comparable level of skills Accord
ingly, we conclude that this factor favors awarding
the work to the employees represented by the Dis-
trict Council
8M4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 Safety
The doors that are the subject of this work dis-
pute can weigh thousands of pounds The doors do
not have hinges They are suspended in the air
above a door opening and roll down to close the
passageway Improper installation could be ex-
tremely dangerous because a door could fall out of
its supports and cause serious injury Safety factors
require that the doors be installed by properly ex-
perienced workers Local 424 failed to present any
evidence that employees it represents possess the
skills necessary for a safe installation The Employ-
er presented evidence that its employees could
safely install the doors Therefore, we find this
factor favors awarding the disputed work to the
employees represented by the District Council
6 Interunion agreements
Local 424 submitted two documents in support
of its claim to the disputed work Local 424 con
tends that the documents are agreements between
the Carpenters and Iron Workers international
unions However, these documents are unsigned
and are labeled "proposed" and "draft " The docu-
ments do not further the position of Local 424 be
cause they do not appear on their face to be bind
ing agreements Accordingly, this factor is not
helpful to a determination
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we
conclude that the employees represented by the
District Council are entitled to perform the work
in the dispute We reach this conclusion relying on
company preference, past practice, relative skills,
and safety
In making this determination, we are awarding
the work to the employees represented by the Dis-
trict Council, not to any Union or its members
The determination is limited to the controversy
that gave rise to this proceeding 3
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the
following Determination of Dispute
1 Employees of Overhead Door Company of
Westchester, a Division of Overhead Door Compa
ny of Norwalk, Inc, represented by the District
Council of Carpenters of Westchester County are
entitled to perform the installation of sectional alu
minum and rolling steel doors at the Bridgeport,
Connecticut worksite
2 Local 424, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-
CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force the Overhead
Door Company of Westchester, a Division of
Overhead Door Company of Norwalk, Inc, to
assign the disputed work to employees represented
by it
3 Within 10 days from this date, Local 424,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, shall notify
the Regional Director for Region 34 in writing
whether it will refrain from forcing the Employer,
by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to
assign the disputed work in a manner inconsistent
with the determination
9 The Employer is seeking a broad areawide award However because
we are unable to conclude that the dispute between employees represent
ed by the District Council and Local 424 is likely to recur a broad
award is not appropriate Iron Workers Local 350 (Cornell & Co) 271
NLRB 1182 1185 (1984)