Local 701, IBEWDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 23, 1981255 N.L.R.B. 1157 (N.L.R.B. 1981) Copy Citation LOCAL 701, IBEW 1157 Local 701, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and The University of Chicago d/b/a Argonne National Laboratory and Lodge No. 2458, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 13- CD-284 April 23, 1981 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow- ing a charge filed by The University of Chicago d/b/a Argonne National Laboratory, herein called the Employer or Argonne, alleging that Local 701, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, herein called the Electrical Workers, violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing or re- quiring the Employer to assign certain work to its members rather than to employees represented by Lodge No. 2458, International Association of Ma- chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Machinists. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Edward D. Klaeren on November 24 and December 2, 4, 5, and 9, 1980. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following findings: I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Employer is an Illinois nonprofit corpora- tion operating as a unit of The University of Chica- go, a private educational institution. It is located in Argonne, Illinois. Most of Argonne's funds are provided under a contractual agreement between The University of Chicago and the United States Government acting through the Department of Energy (hereinafter DOE). Under the terms of this contract, The University of Chicago operates Ar- gonne for the purpose of engaging in experimental testing of various types, including work with atomic particles and other radioactive materials. In the last 12 months, Argonne had revenues in excess of $2 million and it purchased and received materi- als in excess of $50,000 from points outside the State of Illinois. At the hearing, the Electrical Workers moved to dismiss the charge in this proceeding, arguing that 255 NLRB No. 148 the Board lacks jurisdiction under Section 2(1) and (2) of the Act. It contends that the United States Department of Labor (hereinafter DOL) and DOE, which are exempted from the Act's coverage pur- suant to Section 2(2) therof, are necessary parties to this dispute and therefore, without joining them as parties to the instant dispute, the Board is pre- cluded from making a determination in the instant case. The Electrical Workers further argues that if the National Labor Relations Board asserts juris- diction here it will exceed its delegated powers in that it will deprive employees of a right granted to them by Congress to receive an area standards wage pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act.' Finally, it argues that due process will be denied because the Board's determination would be based upon evi- dence adduced at a hearing at which necessary par- ties to the dispute were not present and were not afforded the opportunity to participate fully. The evidence shows that, under its contract with DOE, Argonne submits proposals to DOE and DOE authorizes Argonne to proceed on a propos- al-by-proposal basis. DOE reimburses Argonne for certain expenses, including wages and the cost of employee benefit plans. DOE does not have input with regard to the hiring, discharging, layoff, recall, or work assignments of employees. DOE neither participates in Argonne's collective-bargain- ing negotiations nor has input into decisions made during the utilization of the grievance procedure by Argonne employees. DOE approves any major changes in employee benefits and has veto power on cost reimbursements to Argonne under its bene- fit plans. Article XXIV, paragraph 24.5, of the con- tractual agreement between DOE and Argonne refers to work covered by the Davis-Bacon Act and provides as follows: The University and ERDA [now DOE] have agreed upon a procedure under which ERDA will determine when work to be undertaken at the Laboratory Facilities [Argonne] is covered by the Davis-Bacon Act. When it is deter- mined that the Davis-Bacon Act does cover a particular work project the University shall procure by subcontract the covered work. Any subcontract entered into under this sec- I The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-7), provides that certain contracts over 2,000 entered into by any executive agency for construction, alteration, or repair (including painting or decorating) of public buildings or public works within the United States shall contain a provision to the effect that no laborer or mechanic employed directly upon the site of the work contemplated by the contract shall receive less than the prevailing rates of wages as determined by the Secretary of Labor. The term "wages" as used in the Davis-Bacon Act includes the basic hourly rate of pay, the rate of contribution irrevocably made by an employer pursuant to a fund, plan, or program, and the rate of costs to the employer which may be reasonably anticipated in providing certain bona fide fringe benefits. LOCAL 701, IBEW 157 1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion shall contain the provisions relative to labor and wages required by law to be includ- ed in contracts for the construction, alteration and/or repair, including painting and decorat- ing, of a public building or public work. When requested by ERDA, any such subcontract shall be submitted for ERDA approval. Pursuant to this provision of the contract, Ar- gonne submits a proposal to DOE for approval in- cluding work to be done by Argonne employees (and thus, "non-covered" under the Davis-Bacon Act) and work to be done by outside contractors (and thus, "covered" under the Davis-Bacon Act). DOE then makes the final determination on which work is to be "covered" under the Davis-Bacon Act and therefore given to an outside contractor. Once it is determined that certain work on an Ar- gonne project is "covered" by the Davis-Bacon Act, DOL makes a prevailing wage determination for those employees who are to perform the work. It is undisputed that Argonne is not an exempt entity. However, as described above, Argonne has a close relationship with the two exempt govern- mental agencies, DOE and DOL. The standard for ascertaining whether the Board's assertion of juris- diction over an employer with close ties to an exempt entity is warranted is the "right of control" test set forth in National Transportation Service, Inc., 240 NLRB 565 (1979). This test requires a de- termination to be made as to whether the nonex- empt employer retains sufficient control over its employees' terms and conditions of employment so as to be capable of collective bargaining with the employees' representative. We find that Argonne, the Employer herein, retains such control. Thus, while the Employer has entered into a contractual agreement with DOE, it retains the authority to hire, fire, lay off, and recall employees and to assign work to employees. It determines all the terms and conditions of employment and engages in collective bargaining with its employees. It re- tains the power to resolve grievances with its em- ployees. Although DOE has the power to veto cost reimbursement under the contract and to ap- prove major changes in benefit plans, it has never controlled the wages and benefits that Argonne provides its employees as a result of the collective- bargaining process. Similarly, we find that DOL has no control over the Employer's operations whatsoever. Under the contract, DOL's role is lim- ited to setting an area wage standard once a deter- mination has been made by DOE that certain work is "covered" under the Davis-Bacon Act. In light of the foregoing, it is evident that the Employer has retained virtually full control over matters affecting wages, hours of employment, and working conditions, and is therefore capable of en- gaging in meaningful collective bargaining. Ac- cordingly, we deny the Electrical Workers motion to dismiss and 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. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Local 701, IBEW, and Lodge 2458, IAM, are labor orga- nizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. The Work in Dispute The work in dispute involves all installation of cable tray and cable currently being performed by the Employer's technicians within an area known as the beam line, which extends between the Rapid Cycling Synchrontron (RCS) and a neutron target in connection with the Intense Pulse Neutron Source (IPNS) project at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois. B. Background and Facts of the Dispute Since 1971, the Employer's technicians have been represented by the Machinists through succes- sive collective-bargaining agreements. Prior to the present IPNS project at Argonne, there was a simi- lar larger project entitled the ZGS project which began in 1959 and continued until 1979. The ZGS project involved the utilization of cable tray and cable to supply power from the AC disconnects to the diagnostic equipment within the beam line area (similar to work which is that in dispute herein). At least since 1965, the Employer's technicians per- formed this work on the ZGS project and are as- signed to perform this work on the IPNS project. On both projects, the laying of cable tray and cable from power substations to the AC discon- nects outside the beam line area has been and is done by electricians who are represented by the Electrical Workers by virtue of a collective-bar- gaining agreement with the resident electrical con- tractor. In October 1971, Stan Perry, a business repre- sentative of the Electrical Workers, made a claim for the disputed work on the ZGS project to the Employer's attorney, George Lubben. Lubben told Perry that the Employer's people were not repre- sented by the Electrical Workers. In mid-Novem- ber 1971, Perry and Lubben had another meeting in which Lubben again informed Perry he could not have the work. In response, the Electrical LOCAL 701, IBEW 1159 Workers attorney, Hugh Arnold, said, "We will do whatever we have to to get Argonne to give us the work even if we have to put up a picket line and get NLRB jurisdiction in the matter." There was no picketing or other action in 1971. The IPNS project began its first phase of con- struction in 1979. Pursuant to its contract with DOE, the Employer submitted to DOE the differ- ent duties on the proposed project together with its recommendations for Davis-Bacon determinations. DOE found the installation of cable tray and cable from the AC disconnects to the IPNS project within the beam line area to be "non-covered" work and thus this work was given to the Employ- er's technicians. Under a Davis-Bacon determina- tion issued August 12, 1980, DOE found the laying of cable tray and cable from the power substations to the AC disconnects outside the beam line area to be "covered" work and thus this work was as- signed to the resident electrical contractor, who has a contract with Electrical Workers. Rudolph Bouie, the Employer's plant manager and supervisor of the IPNS project, testified that, in November 1979, he met with the Electrical Workers present business representative, Jerry O'Conner, and other representatives from most of the major trades. At this meeting, O'Conner told Bouie that the Davis-Bacon determination on the installation of cable tray and cable from the AC disconnects to the IPNS project made no sense and he was going to get it turned around. O'Conner and Bouie had another meeting in December 1979, in which Bouie showed O'Conner the work and explained the Davis-Bacon determinations to him. O'Conner made no inquiry at either of these meet- ings about the wages received by the Employer's technicians. In early March 1980, the Employer's attorney, Lubben, received letters from O'Conner and from the Operating Engineers Local 150 business repre- sentative, Paul Wood. Both letters inquired about the Employer's alleged failure to pay area stand- ards on the project. On March 4, 1980, Lubben and Bouie met with several union representatives in- cluding O'Conner and Wood, during a regular meeting of the Depage County Building Trades Association. During the meeting, Wood made claim by the Operating Engineers for the work being done on the beam line. O'Conner then ac- cused the Employer of failing to meet area stand- ards. In response, Lubben accused O'Conner of using area standards as a subterfuge, disguising the fact that he had been trying to get the work for many years. O'Conner replied that he did not want to talk to Lubben anymore, that he had been at this for 9 years and was no longer going to waste his time on it. On March 14, 1980, Operating Engineers Local 150 began picketing the Employer's entrances. Fol- lowing the filing of a charge with the Board by the resident outside contractor, Power Systems, Inc., in Case 13-CD-273, Local 150 ceased picketing. The Electrical Workers then began picketing and con- tinued to picket the Employer until April 14, 1980, when an injunction restraining such conduct was obtained. The picket signs read: Argonne National Laboratory violating area standards, Local 701, not an attempt to organize. On March 27, 1980, Power Systems filed a charge against the Electrical Workers in Case 13- CD-275. Notices of 10(k) hearings issued for the above charges against the Electrical Workers and Operating Engineers Local 150 and the two cases were consolidated for hearing on April 14, 1980. At the hearing, both unions disclaimed interest in the disputed work and the hearing was adjourned. By a letter dated May 20, 1980, the Regional Di- rector dismissed the charges against both unions as a result of their disclaimers. On May 30, 1980, and July 10, 1980, due to fur- ther proposals made by the Employer, DOE issued further Davis-Bacon determinations on the IPNS project. These determinations made no change in the work assignments in dispute in this case. Nev- ertheless, Plant Manager Bouie met with Union Representatives O'Conner and Wood on May 30, 1980, and in mid-July 1980 to discuss the determi- nations. At both meetings, O'Conner expressed the view that more work on the cable tray and cable should be "covered" under the Davis-Bacon deter- minations and therefore assigned to the Electrical Workers. Each time, Bouie specifically informed O'Conner that there was no change from the previ- ous Davis-Bacon determinations. Thus, the work which is the subject of the instant dispute contin- ued to be "non-covered" and assigned to the Em- ployer's technicians. On October 14, 1980, Bouie was summoned to the resident construction trailer office to meet with O'Conner. Bouie again explained the Davis-Bacon determination to O'Conner but O'Conner claimed the disputed work and threatened to picket the Employer. On October 16, 1980, O'Conner met with Attorney Lubben. After telling Lubben he only cared about what the Employer's technicians get paid, O'Conner made another claim for the dis- puted work. O'Conner made no inquiry regarding LOCAL 70!, BEW 1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the technicians' wages at this meeting. After the meeting, Lubben called DOE and requested that it send a representative to observe the disputed work. Subsequently, DOE personnel observed the work and DOE reaffirmed its earlier determination that the disputed work was "non-covered." Lubben called O'Conner with this information on October 17, 1980. On October 20, 1980, Lubben received a letter from the Electrical Workers attorney, Hugh Arnold, concerning the Employer's alleged failure to pay area standards. The following morning the Electrical Workers pickets appeared along the pe- rimeter of the Employer's property. The picket signs stated: Local 701 Argonne National Laboratory not meeting area standards. No attempt to organize any employees. The picketing continued until November 14, 1980. C. The Contentions of the Parties2 The Employer contends that a jurisdictional dis- pute exists and there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violat- ed. It further contends that the disputed work should be awarded to employees represented by the Machinists on the basis of the parties' collec- tive-bargaining agreement, efficiency and economy of operations, skills and safety, the Employer's past practice and current assignment of the work; and the Davis-Bacon Act determinations on the IPNS project. The Electrical Workers contends that there is no reasonable cause to believe that it violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act because it does not claim the disputed work for the employees it represents, since the sole purpose of its picketing was to inform the public that the Employer's employees are receiving substandard wages as a result of the Davis-Bacon Act determination. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with a determina- tion of the 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 and that the parties have not agreed upon a method for the voluntary adjustment of the dis- pute. 1. It is settled law that a jurisdictional dispute no longer exists where "one of the competing unions or parties effectively renounces its claim to the 2 The Electrical Workers did not submit a brief to the Board. work." 3 However, the record indicates that since November 1979 the Electrical Workers has claimed the work in dispute and has challenged the validity of the Davis-Bacon determinations concerning the work assignments. Thus, in November and Decem- ber 1979, the Electrical Workers business repre- sentative, O'Conner, complained to the Employer's plant manager about the Davis-Bacon determina- tions. After a meeting with the Employer's repre- sentatives, Lubben and Bouie, on March 4, 1980, the Electrical Workers began picketing the en- trances of the Employer sometime after March 14, 1980, and continuing until April 14, 1980. At the subsequent hearing on a charge filed against Elec- trical Workers for this conduct, the Electrical Workers disclaimed interest in the work and the hearing was adjourned. In light of the Electrical Workers disclaimer, the Regional Director dis- missed these charges against Respondent on May 20, 1980. After the above series of events, the Electrical Workers again made claims for the disputed work and threatened to picket the Employer. When the Employer confirmed that the work assignments would remain constant, the Electrical Workers again picketed the Employer from October 21, 1980, until November 14, 1980. The charge was filed in the instant case, and the Electrical Workers provided written notification to all parties that it disclaimed any interest in the disputed work as it had done in the previous case and filed a Motion To Quash the Notice of Hearing on or about No- vember 21, 1980. The Hearing Officer referred the motion to the Board. In the circumstances present- ed herein, we shall not give effect to the disclaimer and we shall deny Respondent's motion. The Board has found that a disclaimer of work in a jurisdictional dispute cannot be given effect if it appears that the charged union is engaging in the practice of a hollow disclaimer for the purpose of avoiding an authoritative decision on the merits.4 This is precisely the situation presented here. For the second time a charge has been filed against the Electrical Workers concerning the issue herein, and for the second time it has disclaimed interest in the disputed work. After its previous disclaimer, it wasted little time to again claim interest in the dis- puted work. It thus appears the Workers is at- tempting to avoid any definitive resolution of the s N.LR.B. v. Plasterers' Local nion No. 79, Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Assn., AFL-CIO Texas State Tile and Ter- razzo Co.], 404 U.S. 116, 134-135 (1971); see General Building Laborers' Local Union No. 66 of the Laborers' International Union of North America (Georgia-Pacific Corporation), 209 NLRB 611 (1974). ' Laborers' International Union of North America, Laborers' District Council of Western Pennsylvania and Local 91a AFL-CIO (Brockway Glass Company, Inc.), 226 NLRB 142, 143 (1976). LOCAL 701, IBEW 1161 issues and is seeking to escape the consequences of its unlawful actions. Under these circumstances, such an empty disclaimer cannot be given effect and, therefore, the Electrical Workers motion to quash the notice of hearing is denied. 2. The Electrical Workers denies that its picket- ing of the Employer's IPNS project was for pur- poses violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D) and contends that the sole object of the picketing was to protest the substandard wages being paid to the Employ- er's technicians as a result of the Davis-Bacon Act determinations. In support of its position, the Elec- trical Workers notes that, at all times it picketed the Employer, it was advising the public that the Employer failed to pay prevailing wages as re- quired by the Davis-Bacon Act to its employees performing certain construction work. However, while this might support a finding that one object of the picketing may have been to protest the Em- ployer's wage scale, the Board must still determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that an object of the picketing was also to force or require the Employer to assign the work to individuals represented by the Electrical Workers. One pro- scribed object is sufficient to bring a union's con- duct within the ambit of Section 8(b)(4)(D).5 The evidence discloses that the Electrical Work- ers has continuously, through a series of meetings with Attorney Lubben and Plant Manager Bouie, asserted its claim regarding the work in dispute and orally challenged the Davis-Bacon determinations since November 1979. At each meeting with the Employer, the Electrical Workers object was to obtain the Employer's reassignment of the work in dispute to the individuals it represents by pressur- ing the Employer to redefine the work as "cov- ered" under the Davis-Bacon Act. Both occasions when Respondent picketed the Employer's prem- ises in 1980 closely followed these abortive claims for the disputed work. Additionally, there is no evidence that Respondent ever made an inquiry about the wages the Employer paid its technicians, and there is no evidence to indicate the Employer paid a substandard wage. In these circumstances, we conclude that there is reasonable cause to be- lieve that an object of the Electrical Workers pick- eting was to force and require the Employer to assign the work in dispute to individuals it repre- sents, 6 and, accordingly, we find that a jurisdic- 5 See Cement Masons Local Union No. 577 (Rocky Mountain Prestress. Inc.), 233 NLRB 923, 924 (1977); Painters and Drywall Finishers. Local Union No. 79, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trade. AFL-CIO (Richard O'Brien Plastering Co.), 213 NLRB 788, 790 (1974). 6 See Cement Masons Local Union No. 577, supra at 925; Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 420. AFL-CIO (Rusco Building Systems, a division of Rusco Industries, Inc.), 198 NLRB 1207, 1209 (1972). tional dispute cognizable under Section 8(b4)(D) exists. 3. No party contends and no evidence was pre- sented at the hearing that there exists an agreed- upon method for the voluntary resolution of the dispute which is binding on all the parties. Accord- ingly, we conclude that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act. E. Merits of the Dispute Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an af- firmative award of disputed work after giving due consideration to and balancing all of the relevant factors involved.7 The Board has held that its de- termination in a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based on commonsense and experience in weighing these factors. 8 The following factors are relevant in making a determination of the dispute before us: I. Collective-bargaining agreement The Employer and the Machinists have been parties to successive collective-bargaining agree- ments since 1971 and are parties to a current col- lective-bargaining agreement effective June 26, 1980. In this agreement, the Employer recognizes the Machinists as the representative of all techni- cians (health physics technicians and reactor opera- tors) located at its Argonne facility. Although the contract does not specifically mention the work in dispute, in article II, section 2.4, the Employer "agrees to continue its past practices with respect to the assignment of work to employees covered by this Agreement .... " The disputed work falls within this category because the Employer has as- signed similar work to its technicians since at least 1965. The Employer does not have a collective- bargaining agreement with the Electrical Workers. Thus, the existence of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Machin- ists favors assignment of the work in dispute to the employees represented by the Machinists. 2. Employer's assignment and past practice As mentioned above, the Employer currently as- signs the disputed work to its technicians represent- ed by the Machinists. This assignment has been the practice of the Employer at least since 1965 when the Employer was working on the ZGS project. The evidence indicates that the laying of cable trays and cable from the AC disconnects to the 7N.L.R.B v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union. Local 1212, International Broherhod of Electrical Workers. AFL-CIO [Colum- bia Broadcasting System]. 364 U.S. 523 (1961). International Associatio,, of Machinists. Lodge Vo. 1743, AFL-CIO (J A. Jonel Construction Comnpany). 135 NLRB 1402. 1411 (1962). LOCAL 701, IBEW 1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IPNS project presently being done by its techni- cians is similar to the work they did on the ZGS project. The evidence further indicates that the em- ployees of the resident electrical contractor (who are represented by the Electrical Workers) have laid the cable tray and cable from the power sub- stations to the AC disconnects on both the ZGS and IPNS projects. Thus, the Employer's current assignment and past practice favors assignment of the work in dispute to employees represented by the Machinists. 3. Economy and efficiency of operations While the technicians who perform the disputed work have done this work several years, the evi- dence shows that the procedures for installation of the cable trays and cable which is now being done by the technicians does not differ greatly from the techniques used by the Electrical Workers electri- cians to lay cable trays and cable from the AC dis- connects to the power substations outside the beam line area. However, the evidence indicates that the technicians have a good working knowledge of the equipment, and do not require supervision because they can read blueprints for the project. The evi- dence also indicates that, in contrast to the electri- cians represented by the Electrical Workers, the technicians are permanent employees, and can maintain the beam line for the duration of the pro- ject. Thus, while electricians represented by the Electrical Workers could perform the disputed work, the factors of efficiency, continuity of the work force, and economy of operations favor as- signment of the work in dispute to the employees represented by the Machinists. 4. Relative skills and safety The evidence establishes that, in general, the em- ployees represented by the Machinists are more highly skilled in performing the type of work in dispute than are the individuals represented by the Electrical Workers. Most of the technicians have an engineering background. The technicians are able to read the markings on the cables, work with- out supervision, and read the blueprints for the project. They also know how to operate, maintain, and alter their work. Nevertheless, the evidence also indicates that it takes no particular skill to lay cable trays and cable and these skills are common to electrical installation. Regarding safety, the evi- dence indicates that the technicians are instructed on Argonne safety and operational procedures due to the radiation dangers in the area. All Argonne personnel have their exposure to radiation closely monitored. Conversely, while the employees repre- sented by the Electrical Workers could be instruct- ed on safety and operation, they are more transient and therefore cannot be as closely monitored for exposure to radiation. Thus, while the difference in skills does not necessarily favor assignment of the disputed work to employees represented by either the Machinists or the Electrical Workers, the safety factors involved favor assignment of the work to employees represented by the Machinists. 5. The Davis-Bacon Act determinations A determination was made by DOE that the dis- puted work is "uncovered" and thus assignable to Argonne's technicians. Pursuant to its collective- bargaining agreement with the resident electrical contractor, the Electrical Workers is performing the work DOE determined to be "covered" which is laying cable tray and cable from the power sub- station to the AC disconnects outside the beam line area. Thus, the determinations made under the Davis-Bacon Act favor assignment of the work to employees represented by the Machinists. Conclusion Upon the record as a whole, and after considera- tion of all relevant factors involved, we conclude that the employees of the Employer who are repre- sented by the Machinists are entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this conclusion rely- ing on the contract between the Employer and the Machinists, the Employer's past practice and pres- ent assignment of the work, efficiency, economy, and control of operations, safety, and the Davis- Bacon Act determinations. In making this determi- nation, we are awarding the work in question to the employees who are represented by the Machin- ists, but not to that Union or its members. The present determination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. 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 makes the following Determination of Dispute: 1. Employees of The University of Chicago d/b/a Argonne National Laboratory, who are rep- resented by Lodge No. 2458, International Associ- ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL- CIO, are entitled to perform the work involving all installation of cable tray and cable being performed within an area known as the beam line, which ex- tends between the Rapid Cycling Synchrontron (RCS) and a neutron target in connection with the Intense Pulse Neutron Source (IPNS) at the locale at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois. ------- ---------- LOCAL 701, IBEW 1163 2. Local 701, International Brotherhood of Elec- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, shall trical Workers, is not entitled by means proscribed notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing The University of Chicago d/b/a Argonne Nation- or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by al Laboratory to assign the disputed work to em- Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the disput- ployees represented by that labor organization. ed work in a manner consistent with the above de- 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision termination. and Determination of Dispute, Local 701, Interna- Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation