Local 825, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1425 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

LOCAL 825, INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS 1425
him so as to obligate him to pay dues for periods when he was thus
unemployed.
The principle that it is unlawful to demand, as a prehiring condi-
tion, the payment of dues accrued while the job applicant is unem-
ployed, or the payment of a reinstatement fee in lieu thereof, is not
novel but, rather, is accepted, traditional Board law. Thus, in Spector
Freight System, Inc.," the Board held that it is unlawful to charge a
reinstatement fee of an employee if his loss of good standing in the
union was based on his failure to pay dues during a period when he had
no obligation to maintain membership as a condition of employment.
This is precisely the situation presented here. Therefore, the union-
security provision in question could not lawfully be enforced against
Mitchell who, during the periods of his unemployment, had no job the
retention of which was conditioned upon union membership in good
standing.
Accordingly, I would find that the reinstatement fee was a penalty
which the Respondents unlawfully attempted to exact from Mitchell
in lieu of unpaid dues for a period during which he was not obligated
to pay dues pursuant to the union-security provision of the contract.
In short, my colleagues, in holding that Mitchell must pay dues or
reinstatement fee in lieu thereof for the periods during which he was
unemployed are, in effect, holding that Mitchell and other casual em-
ployees in like situations, are required to pay dues perpetually for
those times which, as casual employees, they do not work.
u 123 NLRB 43. See also Local 140, Bedding , Curtain & Drapery Workers Union,
United Furniture Workers of America, CIO ( The Englander Company, Inc .), 109 NLRB 326.
Local Union 825, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO and Nichols Electric Company. Case No. Pd-CD-52.
July 18, 1962
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the statute fol-
lowing a charge filed by Nichols Electric Company, herein called
Nichols, alleging a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D) by Local Union
825, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, herein
called Operating Engineers. Pursuant to notice, a regularly scheduled
hearing was held on June 22, 23, and 27 and on August 15, 1961,
before James T. Youngblood, hearing officer. All parties appeared
at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity 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
137 NLRB No. 154.
649856-63-vol. 137-91
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are free from prejdicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter,
briefs were filed by Nichols, by the Operating Engineers, and by
Local Union No. 262, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, herein called Local 262 and IBEW.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board 1 makes the following
findings : 2
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Nichols Electric Company is an electrical contractor with its prin-
cipal place of business in Chester, New Jersey. Annually it receives
materials for its work from points outside the State of New Jersey in
an amount in excess of $50,000. We find that Nichols is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local No. 262, IBEW, and Operating Engineers are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. The work at issue
Nichols, an electrical contractor, is engaged primarily in erecting
and wiring electrical pole lines. The standard operation requires
digging a hole in the ground, standing the pole firmly in it, and, on
cross bars, stringing electrical transmission wires the length of the
lines. At times the holes are dug and the poles planted entirely by
manual labor. At others, and apparently for the most part by this
Company, mechanical means are utilized. In that event, a compre-
hensive line truck is used as follows :
A power-driven auger is attached to the rear of the truck. In order
to operate it, the truck backs up to where the hole is to be bored. The
auger is then set in position and by means of power supplied by the
truck or by separate motor attached to the truck the auger is operated,
thus boring a hole. Excess dirt remaining in the hole is removed by
hand shovel. A power-driven A-frame or derrick is then set in posi-
tion on the back of the truck and used to hoist the electric line pole
into the hole. After the pole is set in position, loose dirt around its
bottom is tramped down. Cross frames are attached to the pole while
it is lying on the ground or after it is raised into the air. Wires are
strung on the pole after it has been erected.
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Rodgers and Leedom].
2 Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied since the record and briefs
adequately state the positions of the parties.
LOCAL 325, INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS 1427
On behalf of its members, the Operating Engineers claims the work
of operating the auger and the derrick. Nichols and IBEW, Local
262, insist that the work may properly be performed by the Company's
present complement of employees who are represented by Local 262
and to whom Nichols has been assigning the work. Whenever hole
digging and pole planting were performed by hand labor on this
project, the Operating Engineers conceded Nichols' right to use IBEW
members, as it also makes no claim to the work of driving the trucks
or stringing the wires.
B. Evidence of conduct violative of Section 8(b) (4) (D)
The State of New Jersey awarded to Elmhurst Contracting Co.,
herein called Elmhurst, a contract to build a dam known as the Spruce
Run Dam near Clinton, New Jersey. Elmhurst subcontracted a por-
tion of this work to Selby Drilling Corporation, which in turn on or
about May 1, 1961, orally subcontracted to Nichols the erection of
power transmission lines to Selby's concrete batching bins at this
project. Elmhurst and Selby both have collective-bargaining agree-
ments with the Operating Engineers. In its home territory, and gen-
eral field of operations, Nichols has a collective-bargaining agreement
with IBEW, Local 358, of Perth Amboy, New Jersey. As the Spruce
Run Dam project is located in the territorial jurisdiction of IBEW,
Local 262, Nichols, as part of its efforts to obtain electricians, signed
an assent contract with Local 262, whereby it agreed to be bound by
the contract between Local 262 and the Electrical Contractors of
Plainfield, New Jersey.
On or about May 3, 1961, Albert O'Brien, general supervisor for
Nichols, arrived at the Spruce Run site with a crew of six men, four of
whom were from Local 262. The Nichols crew had with them a line
truck, whose equipment included an auger for the drilling of pole
holes. There were a number of operating engineers working nearby
who were employed by Selby and Elmhurst. As O'Brien's crew was
about to commence digging operations with the auger, Joseph Lepore,
an operating engineer employed by Selby, approached them and asked
to see the union cards of the auger operator. The operator had no
Operating Engineers card and Lepore reported the fact to Gatti, the
steward on the job for the Operating Engineers. Gatti, with a few
other operating engineers, walked over to the auger truck and told
O'Brien that he must have Operating Engineers to operate the truck.
O'Brien and Gatti then spoke with Yanuzzi, also known as Bates, the
head engineer on the job. In this conversation, O'Brien was informed
that the auger could not operate without Operating Engineers. Gatti
stated at the hearing that he then spoke with Kangas, superintendent
of Selby, and informed Kangas that the hole-drilling was the work of
1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Operating Engineers. O'Brien then returned to the line truck about
noon and removed it for the day.
On May 9, 1961, O'Brien returned with the line truck and his crew
and again commenced to dig a hole with the auger . Gatti and a num-
ber of operating engineers then left their work stations with Elmhurst
and Selby, and they approached and stood around in such close
proximity to Nichols' line truck, as to interfere with the operation of
the truck. O'Brien then went again to see Kangas. Kangas came
down to the site where Nichols' line truck was operating and seeing
some 10 or 15 Selby and Elmhurst engineers standing around the
truck, he attempted to contact Gatti in an effort to resolve the difficulty.
Gatti avoided Kangas.
Apparently seeing no other alternative, Kangas discussed with
'O'Brien the possibility of completing the work by hand. O'Brien
then returned to his crew and, as it had become rather late in the after-
noon, 3 or 3:30 p.m., he removed his truck and his men. He returned
with his crew during the next few days when, instead of using power
Equipment, he had them accomplish the digging and pole hoisting by
hand. There was no interference from the engineers while Nichols'
crew completed the job in this manner.
C. The contentions of the parties
The Operating Engineers denies that it engaged in any illegal con-
duct and affirmatively contends that its members are entitled to the
disputed work on the basis of tradition and custom in the industry and
because IBEW, Local 262, is bound by a decision of the Joint Board
for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in this very case. It also
argues that its contracts with Elmhurst and Selby require an award
in its favor.
The IBEW rests its claim upon the contract between Nichols and
IBEW, Local 262, and upon the assertion that the record in its en-
tirety proves that this work has historically and regularly been per-
formed by Electricians and not by Operating Engineers. It also
argues that the Joint Board lacks authority to settle disputes relating
to transmission line installations such as this one.
Nichols says that it has always assigned this work to Electricians,
that it is in no way subject to the authority of the Joint Board, and
that on the entire record the Board can only determine the dispute in
favor of the Company's established practice.
D. Applicability of the statute
Implicit in the Operating Engineers' argument that the Joint
Board's decision finally put this dispute at rest is the further conten-
tion that that entire proceeding and award reveals an agreed-upon
method for voluntary adjustment between the parties which, under
LOCAL 825, INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS 1429
the statute, precludes any further consideration of the issue by this
Board now.' On the record before us we canliot view that decision
as having such effect.
By letter dated June 6,1961, the Operating Engineers submitted this
dispute to the Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Dis-
putes in Washington, D.C. On June 16, the Joint Board awarded the
work in dispute to the Operating Engineers. The IBEW for many
years has consistently taken the position that it will not be bound by
any Joint Board determination involving line work. The National
Electrical Contractors Association, of which Nichols is a member, has
also refused to be bound by any Joint Board determination dealing
with line work. Nichols did not participate in that Joint Board
proceeding. Lastly, the contract between Nichols and Local 262, di-
rectly applicable to this dispute, makes no provision for the referral
of any such dispute to the Joint Board. In these circumstances, we
do not believe it can be said that the parties have submitted to us
"satisfactory evidence that they have adjusted, or agreed upon meth-
ods for the voluntary adjustment of, the dispute." 4
As to the Operating Engineers' assertion that it did no more than
voice its request that the work in question be assigned to its members
instead of to Electricians, there is much in the record indicating that
it exerted improper pressure upon Nichols to force immediate hiring
of Operating Engineers if the Company wished to continue using the
auger and a derrick. Steward Gatti told Nichols' supervisor he would
be required to use engineers; and some days later Gatti with a large
group of engineers impeded the safe operation of the line truck as
described above.
In any event, in order to pass upon the merits of the dispute here,
we are not required to find that the Respondent Operating Engineers
in fact engaged in conduct proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D). All
we need determine in this proceeding is that there is reasonable cause
to believe that the Respondent engaged in such conduct. We are
satisfied that the record in its entirety warrants such a conclusion and
we so find. Accordingly, on the basis of the entire record, we find that
there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section
8(b) (4) (D) has occurred and that the dispute is properly before the
Board for determination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
E. The merits of the dispute
There is no certification of bargaining representatives issued by the
Board that can be said to apply to any of the employees involved in
3 Section 10(k) of the Act provides that the Board ". . . is empowered . . . to . . . de-
termine the dispute . . . unless . . the parties . . have adjusted or agreed upon vol-
untary adjustment of the dispute. Upon such voluntary adjustment . . . the charge shall
be dismissed." [Emphasis supplied.]
4 International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 66, AFL-CIO (Frank P Badolato
Son ), 135 NLRB 1392.
1430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this dispute. There are a number of other pertinent facts which are
urged upon us either as in themselves determinative of the issue or
as persuasive reason for an affirmative assignment one way or the other.
1. Contract provisions
The only collective-bargaining agreement directly applicable here
is between Nichols and IBEW, Local 262, covering the employees to
whom the Company has assigned the work. The only contract lan-
guage that could shed light on the precise issue presented to us is that
the Employer recognizes IBEW, Local 262, as representative of
"employees performing work in the jurisdiction of this Union," and
that "... work of installing ... all wiring for . . . electrical equip-
ment ... shall be performed by workmen employed under the terms
of this agreement." 5
The fact that this is the only contract Nichols appears to have with
any union covering his employees, plus the fact it has never recognized
or dealt with the Operating Engineers, is strong indication that the
agreement was intended to cover all the work which this company, as
an electrical contractor, undertakes. Beyond that, the language of the
agreement helps us little, for "wiring" can be "installation" on poles
already erected, and the "jurisdiction" of the Union is nowhere de-
fined or explained in the contract itself. We cannot find, therefore,
that this contract expressly covers the disputed work.
The Operating Engineers contend that the work involved is covered
by its agreements with Selby and Elmhurst and that these employers
have violated these agreements by subcontracting work to Nichols,
which has no contract with the Operating Engineers. Even assuming
that the breach, if any, of the Selby or Elmhurst agreements were
relevant here, it is by no means clear that these contracts were in-
tended to apply to the precise work of digging holes and planting
poles for electrical transmission wires. Although the agreements
recognize the Operating Engineers as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of employees who operate power equipment, such as "winch
trucks" and "post holes diggers," such recognition is limited to those
situations where such equipment is used in the construction of ".. .
bridge approaches, viaducts, shafts, tunnels, subways . . . piers,
docks, dams , dredging, port works. . . ." The listed construction
uses , however, do not necessarily include the erection of poles for power
transmission lines.
More fully the agieement details the contract work coverage as
The work of installing , maintaining , connecting, and shifting of all wiring for tem-
porary lightening [ sic], heat or power and the maintenance of pumps, fans or
blowers, welding machines, and other electrical equipment in new buildings in the
course of construction , old building equipment undergoing alterations, subways,
bridges and highways under construction and/or repair shall be performed by work-
men employed under the terms of this agreement.
LOCAL 825, INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS 1431
2. Union constitutions
To the extent that they may related to the work here involved, the
jurisdictional declarations set out in the respective constitutions of the
Internationals of the two competing union groups differ only to the
extent that the IBEW one seems more nearly to describe the work.
As is to be expected, of course, neither refers specifically to digging
holes and planting poles exactly for transmission lines, for constitu-
tional provisions by their very nature must treat with general con-
cepts. Among the many duties and responsibilities spelled out in the
Operating Engineers' constitution is the work of operating ".. .
hoisting and portable machines and engines, used in or upon wrecking,
digging, boring, building and erecting foundations, buildings, tun-
nels and subways, dams, reservoirs, . . ." "all derricks, boom hoists
(of all descriptions and capacities) and automatic hoists ... used
for hoisting building material or lowering debris. . . ." The IBEW
constitution covers, among other things, ". . . all line work consist-
ing of wood, concrete or metal (or substitute therefor) poles or towers,
including wires, cables or other apparatus supported therefrom."
3. Determinations of the Joint Board
Operating Engineers placed in the record some 130 recent decisions
of the National Joint Board for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes
in the Building and Construction Industry which awarded the work of
operating power-driven hoists and diggers to Operating Engineers
where disputes over the assignment of this work had arisen in various
parts of the United States. Although they dealt with the construc-
tion industry and in many instances were adverse to the claims of elec-
tricians, these decisions seem to paraphrase the generalities of the
Operating Engineers' constitution and speak of the machines as such;
none of them reflects an award to the Operating Engineers for the
operation of such machines where used, specifically, to dig holes for,
and set in place, electrical transmission poles. Further, a fair read-
ing of them all shows that they do not stand for the proposition that
hoists and derricks must be operated by engineers without regard to
the use to which the machine is put. Rather, some award the work of
"unloading or hoisting materials" by operation of an A-frame truck
to operating engineers, while others award this same work to elec-
tricians when these machines were used to "pull cables or handle
reels." 6
Even assuming that these Joint Board awards were intended, like
that Board's decision on June 16, 1961, relating to this very dispute,
O See, e g., Joint Board decision of June 6, 1957, "Air Reduction job La Puento, Cali-
fornia, Bechtel Corporation contractor"; decision of October 30, 1958, "Powerhouse job
Indian River City, Florida"; decision of November 6, 1958 , "Jackson Lock & Dam job.
Jackson , Alabama."
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to assign the operation of power-driven equipment used in electrical
pole line work to Operating Engineers, there is no indication that the
IBEW joined in submitting any of these disputes, including the in-
stant one, to the Joint Board. On the contrary, John Parker, assistant
to the president of the IBEW, testified at the 10(k) hearing that the
IBEW takes the position that pole line work is not construction work
and that it has, therefore, consistently protested Joint Board action
in such cases for many years. He testified that the IBEW withdrew
from the Joint Board for the period 1952 to 1956 because of this very
disagreement with that body. He further testified that a condition of
the IBEW's reaffiliation with the Joint Board in 1957 was that the
Joint Board would make no determinations regarding pole line work.
However, the Joint Board continues to make awards in such matters
against the IBEW and IBEW is continuing its protests and, in fact,
refuses to honor the awards. Accordingly, from the record as a
whole, we are unable to conclude that any stipulation of the IBEW
to the Joint Board for construction work includes the work in issue
here. Therefore, we cannot accord to the Joint Board's award of
June 16, 1961, or to its prior decisions, sufficient weight to offset the
other relevant considerations appearing in the record.
4. Custom and practice
Apart from what limited value the Joint Board decisions can have as
reflecting industrywide practices, none of the parties produced evi-
dence supporting their conflicting assertions that broad national pat-
terns support their respective positions. Evidence was introduced,
however, respecting the practices in the State of New Jersey, where the
parties here involved generally operate.
The Operating Engineers also point to a number of decisions of
the Joint Board and its predecessor, the Executive Council of the
Building and Construction Trades Department, dealing with disputes
in the New Jersey area, where awards were made to the Operating
Engineers for the operation of power-driven equipment for digging
holes and hoisting materials. These decisions concern projects at the
Hercules Powder Plant, Parlin, New Jersey, McGuire Air Force Base,
Fort Dix, the so-called Del Balse job at Linden, New Jersey, and
Camp Kilmer. However, only the Hercules Powder Plant award
(1946) specifies "the operation of a line truck with a boom to be used
to erect power and light poles." There are also the 1954 and 1959
agreements between the Operating Engineers and Associated General
Contractors of the State of New Jersey, in which the Operating En-
gineers were recognized for operation of "heavy boring machines" and
power unit trucks used for the hoisting of material. In addition, sev-
eral individual employer witnesses testified that they themselves had
employed Operating Engineers to perform the work in question here
LOCAL 825, INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS 1433
on construction jobs. In these cases, however, it appeared that the gen-
eral contractor frequently accomplished both the normal construction
work and the electrical pole line work with his own employees, instead
of using electrical subcontractors.
On the other hand, representatives of various locals of the IBEW,
with jurisdiction in different parts of the State of New Jersey, testi-
fied that this work has traditionally been done by members of the
IBEW equipped with line trucks carrying power-driven digging or
hoisting equipment. John Countryman, the president of Nichols, testi-
fied that from approximately 1946 to 1955 while he was employed by
the New Jersey Power and Light Company, the pole line work for
that company was accomplished by utility employees represented by
the IBEW. Floyd Taylor, the president of Schoonover Company,
Inc., electrical contractors of Mountainside, New Jersey, who was also
president of the New Jersey Chapter of the National Electrical Con-
tractors Association, testified that since 1954 the work of digging poles
and placing poles for wires either manually or by use of power-driven
equipment has been done by electrical contractors whose employees,
wherever organized, are represented by the IBEW local of the area.
There is little in the foregoing evidence on the pertinent considera-
tion of custom or practice to lend effective weight to the Operating
Engineers' claim. Apart from its conflicting character, the evidence
of past assignments to operating engineers, as in the case of the Joint
Board awards, is more in terms of general operation of digging and
hoisting machinery or engines in the construction industry than in
precise terms of digging holes for and planting poles in connection
with electrical power lines. The proof of such assignment by electrical
contractors throughout the State to electricians, on the other hand,
whatever the real extent may have been, is direct and unequivocal.
As to the past practice of the Nichols Company, its president's testi-
mony is clear and uncontradicted. He said that since 1955, when he
joined the Company, its principal work has been to set up poles and
string electrical wires, that the work has consistently been done with
power augers and hoists, and that its employees have always been elec-
tricians represented by an IBEW local.
Conclusion
As we stated recently in the J. A. Jones case,? we will , pursuant to
the Supreme Court's CBS decision," determine, in each case presented
for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act, the appropriate assign-
7 International Assocroatson of Machinists, Lodge No . 1743, AFL-CIO (J. A. Jones Con-
struction Company ), 135 NLRB 1402.
8 N.L.R B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union Local 1212 International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Columbia Broadcasting System), 364
U.S. 573.
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment of disputed work only after taking into account and balancing
all relevant factors.
On the entire record, we believe the electricians employed by Nichols
are entitled to the work in dispute. As it is doing now, Nichols has
assigned this work to them consistently for a number of years and it
appears clearly that its practice conforms with that of a number of
other electrical contractors in the State of New Jersey. Certainly the
record would not warrant a finding that Nichols' practice is contrary
to statewide or industry practice. The assignment is also bottomed on
a proper collective-bargaining agreement and there is no Board certi-
fication calling for any different work assignment.
It may well be, indeed it is highly probable, that engineers repre-
sented by the Operating Engineers would bring more skill and ex-
perience to the operation of power-driven augers and A-form hoists
or derricks. It does not follow, however, that these line truck elec-
tricians, who have used this same machinery for the precise work here
involved, are not qualified to perform the work competently and to
the satisfaction of both the subcontractor and the general contractor.
Essentially, the Operating Engineers' position here is that when-
ever an auger drill or A-frame derrick is used, no matter for what
purpose and no matter by what employer, its members must be hired
for that work. We view this as the breadth of its argument because
its constitution speaks of these machines and does not specify their
use for setting up electrical poles by electrical contractors. The con-
tention is weakened by the fact that the Joint Board, upon which the
Operating Engineers relies heavily, itself awarded the operation of
these machines to IBEW electricians when use in ancillary aspects of
the electrical craft. Moreover, the constitutional claim of the Operat-
ing Engineers is directly offset by the more precise claim to this very
work appearing in the IBEW constitution.
Accordingly, we shall determine the jurisdictional dispute by de-
ciding that electricians rather than operating engineers are entitled to
operate the power-driven auger and power-driven hoist where used by
Nichols in the digging of holes for, and the setting of, electric poles.
Our present determination is limited to the particular controversy
which gave rise to this proceeding. In making this determination, we
are assigning the disputed work to electricians, who are represented by
the IBEW, but not to Local 262 or its members.
In view of the above, we find that Operating Engineers was not and
is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to force
or require Nichols to assign the work of operating power-driven
drilling and hoisting equipment to its members rather than to mem-
bers of Local 262.
NEWSPAPER & MAIL DELIVERERS' UNION, NEW YORK 1435
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
the case, the Board makes the following Determination of Dispute
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act:
1. Employees engaged as electricians, currently represented by
Local Union No. 262, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, are entitled to operate power-driven drilling and hoisting equip-
ment for Nichols Electric Company at the Spruce Run Dam project,
Clinton, New Jersey.
2. Local Union 825, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b)
(4) (D), to force or require Nichols Electric Company to assign the
work of operating such power-driven drilling and hoisting equipment
to employees engaged as operating engineers, who are currently rep-
resented by Local Union 825, International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL-CIO.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, Local Union 825, International Union of Operating En-
gineers, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-
second Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing
or requiring Nichols Electric Company by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D) to assign the work in dispute to Operating Engineers
rather than Electricians.
Newspaper and Mail Deliverers' Union of New York and Vicinity,
Independent and The New York Times Company
New York Mailers ' Union No. 6, International Typographical
Union , AFL-CIO and The New York Times Company. Cases
Nos. 2-CD-196 and 2-CD-197. July 18, 1962
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a consolidated proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act fol-
lowing charges filed by The New York Times Company, herein called
the Company. One of the charges is against Newspaper and Mail
Deliverers' Union of New York and Vicinity, Independent, herein
called the Deliverers, and alleges that that Union engaged in illegal
conduct with respect to the Company and its employees in order to
force a change in work assignment as between members of the Deliv-
erers and members of New York Mailers' Union No. 6, International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Mailers. The
other charge, against the Mailers, involves the same work dispute and
alleges that the Mailers engaged in like illegal conduct for the purpose
137 NLRB No. 157.