Local Union No. 48.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1415 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

LOCAL UNION NO. 48 1415
Local Union No. 48, Sheet Metal Workers' International Associ-
ation, AFL-CIO 1 and Acousti Engineering of Alabama, Inc.
Case No.10-CD-17. December 16,1955
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) of
section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and deter-
mine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen.. . ."
On September 14,1955, Acousti Engineering of Alabama, Inc., here-
in called the Company, filed with the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region a charge alleging that Local Union No. 48, Sheet Metal Work-
ers' International Association, AFL-CIO, herein called Sheet Metal
Workers, had engaged in and was engaging in certain activities pro-
scribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the amended Act. It was charged,
in substance, that Sheet Metal Workers induced and encouraged em-
ployees of various employers to engage in a strike or a concerted re-
fusal to work in the course of their employment with an object of forc-
ing the Company to assign particular work to sheet metal workers
rather than to carpenters.
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 to all the parties. The hearing was held
before John S. Patton, hearing officer, on October 25, 1955. Both par-
ties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Company filed a brief with the Board.
At the close of the hearing the Sheet Metal Workers moved to dis-
miss the charge on the ground that the evidence did not establish the
Sheet Metal Workers' responsibility for the picket line. The Union
further requested that, if such motion is denied, the Board reopen
the record for the adducing of testimony regarding the place of the
National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in
this dispute. The hearing officer referred the motion and request to
the Board for ruling. The motion is hereby denied for reasons herein-
after stated. The request to reopen the record is hereby denied as the
i The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding, we
are amending the identification of the affiliation of the Union.
114 NLRB No. 217.
1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
uncontroverted testimony shows that the Company was not a party to
any agreement for the settlement of this dispute.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
1. The parties agree, and the Board finds, that the Company is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. The Board bases
this finding upon the fact that by reason of the interrelation of opera-
tions, interchange of services, interlocking ownership and manage-
ment, and common control of labor relations policies the operations of
the Company, Acousti Engineering Company, and Acousti Engineer-
ing Company of Carolina, Inc., constitute a single integrated enter-
prise, and the three companies are, for the purposes of determining
jurisdiction, a single employer which meets the Board's standard for
the exercise of jurisdiction.
2. Sheet Metal Workers is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
3. The dispute :
The Facts
The Company was employed as a subcontractor for the installation
of acoustical ceiling at the Tennessee Coal & Iron Company office at
Wenonah Ore Mines, Jefferson County, Alabama. The Company
employed carpenters and laborers on this job.
On September 13, 1955, the Company was informed by the Sheet
Metal Workers that the work belonged to sheet metal workers and
that, unless the Company's men, represented by the United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, were removed
from the job, the Union would set up a picket line. On September 14
the Sheet Metal Workers again demanded that the Company's em-
ployees be removed from the job and, if they were not, threatened to
picket "from now until Christmas." On that date a picket appeared
at the construction site bearing a placard reading, "Sheet Metal Work
Being Done by Others Than Members of the Sheet Metal Workers"
Local No. 48."
An electrician, plumber, and concrete form man, employees of other
subcontractors, were working on the job. After the picket appeared
they did not go to work. On October 8 or 10, 1955, the picket line
was removed and the employees of the other subcontractors returned
to work.
It was further testified, without contradiction, that the Company
had no contract with the Carpenters or the Sheet Metal Workers, that
no union had been certified as the representative of the Company's
employees, and that the Company had not entered into any agreement
to submit the dispute to the National Joint Board.
LOCAL UNION NO. 48 1417
Contentions of the Parties
The Company contends that by the above conduct the Respondent,
violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the amended Act. The Respondent,
at the hearing, contended that it is not responsible for that conduct.
No defense is urged on the basis of any Board order or certification,
or any contract covering the disputed work.
Applicability of the Statute
The charge, which was duly investigated by the Regional Director,
alleges a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, and the
Regional Director was satisfied, on the basis of his investigation, that
a violation of the section had been committed.
In a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act, the Board is,
required to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated before proceeding with a determina-
tion of the dispute out of which the unfair labor practice has arisen.
As set forth above, the Respondent contends that no violation of Sec-
tion 8 (b) (4) (D) occurred because it is not responsible for establish-
ing the picket line and that therefore it did not "induce or encourage"'
the employees of the various subcontractors to engage in a strike.
The uncontradicted evidence shows that on September 13 and 14,'
1955, a business agent of the Sheet Metal Workers stated that the work
belonged to sheet metal workers and threatened to set up a picket line
if the Company's employees were not removed from the job. On the.
latter date a picket appeared at the job site with a placard stating that
the sheet metal work was not being done by members of the Respondent
Union. The employees of the other subcontractors working on the
job thereupon failed to go to work. When the picket line was removed
on October 8 or 10, they returned to work.
We are satisfied, and find, that there is reasonable cause to believe
that the Respondent induced or encouraged employees working on the
job'to engage in a work stoppage in violation of Section 8 (b) (4)
(D). We find, accordingly, that the dispute involved in this proceed-
ing is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10
(k) of the Act.
Merits of the Dispute
When the Respondent demanded that its members be assigned the
work of installing the acoustical ceiling, employees of the Company
were performing that work. The dispute, therefore, was one over an
employer's assignment of work to his own employees rather than t b,
persons represented by the Sheet Metal Workers.
It is well established (Juneau Spruce Corporation, 82 NLRB 650)
that an employer is entitled to make such assignments free of strike
pressure by a labor organization, "unless such employer is failing
1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the
bargaining representative for employees performing such work." No
defense is urged on the basis of any Board order or certification, con-
tract covering the work, or any agreed-upon method for voluntary
settlement, nor does the record show that any existed.
The Board finds, accordingly, that the Respondent was not lawfully
entitled to require the Company to assign the work of installing the
acoustical ceiling at the Wenonah Ore Mines, Jefferson County, Ala-
bama, to members of the Respondent rather than to employees assigned
by the Company to perform such work.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire record in
this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act :
1. Local Union No. 48, Sheet Metal Workers' International Asso-
ciation, AFL-CIO, and its agents are not and have not been lawfully
entitled to force or require the Acousti Engineering of Alabama, Inc.,
to assign the work in dispute to sheet metal workers rather than to
carpenters in its employ.
2. Said Local Union No. 48 shall, within ten (10) days from the
date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, notify, in writ-
ing, the Regional Director for the Tenth Region of the National Labor
Relations Board, whether or not it accepts the Board's determination
of this dispute, and whether or not it will refrain from forcing or
requiring Acousti Engineering of Alabama, Inc., by means proscribed
by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute
to sheet metal workers rather than to carpenters in their employ.
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Determination of Dispute.
W. A. Ransom Lumber Company and Carpenters Local, No. 584,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 965, AFL, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 15-RC-1217. December 16, 1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On May 6, 1955, the Board 1 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled case,2 finding appropriate for the pur-
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel ( Chair-
man Leedom and Members Peterson and Rodgers].
0 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
114 NLRB No. 219.