Millwrights 1102, United Brotherhood Carpenters, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 5, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 26 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Millwrights Local 1102 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America , AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO; Carpenters Dis-
trict Council of Detroit , Wayne and Oakland Counties and
Vicinities ; Charles Duncan , Business Agent of Local 11021 and
General Riggers and Erectors, Inc. Cases Nos. 7-CD-34 and
7-CD-37. April 5, 1960
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 ( k) of the Act, which
provides 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 July 15 and October 2, 1959, General Riggers and Erectors, Inc.,
filed charges that the Millwrights and Duncan had violated Section
8(b) (4) (D ) of the Act by engaging in, or inducing or encouraging
employees of General Riggers and other employers to engage in,
strikes or concerted refusals to work with the object of forcing or
requiring General Riggers to assign certain work to members of the
Millwrights rather than to employees who were members of Machinery
Movers, Riggers & Machinery Erectors Local Union No. 575 , Inter-
national Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers , AFL-CIO.
Thereafter , pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act and Sections
102.89 and 102.90 of the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, the
Regional Director investigated the charges and provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice . The hearing was held on December
3, 4, 7, and 8 , 1959, at Detroit, Michigan , before Hearing Officer
Herbert C . Kane. 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 are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed . The district Council, Millwrights
Local 1102 , and its business agent, Charles Duncan, filed a brief with
the Board.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board 2 makes the fol-
lowing findings :
1. General Riggers is a Michigan corporation engaged in the
erecting, dismantling, and processing of machine tools and the trans-
I The named labor organizations are herein collectively called Millwrights.
z Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three -member panel [Chairman Leedom and.
Members Bean and Jenkins].
127 NLRB No. 2.
MILLWRIGHTS 1102 , UNITED BROTHERHOOD CARPENTERS, ETC. 27
portation thereof in interstate commerce. During fiscal 1958, it pur-
chased approximately $750,000 worth of goods and services directly
from outside the State of Michigan. During the same period General
Riggers received approximately $750,000 in revenue for services per-
formed out of State. We find that the Company is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. Millwrights Local 1102, the United Brotherhood, the District
Council, and Riggers Local 575 are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute :
a. Facts
Case No. 7-CD-34: Having received a contract for the installation
of an air compressor at the Chrysler-Trenton plant, General Riggers
started to install this machinery with its own employees, all of whom
were members of Riggers Local 575. Duncan demanded that this
work be assigned to members of Millwrights. On July 13, 1959,
members of Millwrights employed by other contractors on the job
left their work and congregated on and around the compressor com-
ponents, preventing the Company's employees from continuing their
installation work. Certain of these Millwrights carried wrenches and
threatened the employees. Such interference continued on July 14
and 15. Millwrights did not remain on or about the compressor at
all times but, intermittently, throughout these 3 days, they prevented
the Company's employees from working. As a result of this incident,
all work on the compressor was halted until a brick wall was erected,
separating the disputed operation from all others on the project.
The wall constituted the side of the powerhouse. After its construc-
tion, the installation of the air compressor was completed by employees
who were Riggers and two employees who were Millwrights.
Case No. 7-CD-37: This case involves a dispute and work stoppage
at Waterworks Park in Detroit where the Company was installing
pumps and related equipment. On September 29, 1959, under au-
thority of the Carpenter's District Council, Millwrights Local 1102
placed a picket line at the contractors' entrance to the Park. The
pickets carried signs which alleged that General Riggers was violating
the terms of the Dunlop Agreement and was discriminating against
the Millwrights. Business agents of Local 1102 were present during
the picketing and only General Riggers' employees crossed the line
to work. After 4 days, the picketing ceased and work was resumed.
Although representatives of the United Brotherhood were aware
of the picketing and participated in a conference called to discuss
the strike, there is no evidence that they took any action to end the
picketing.
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'b. Contentions of the parties
Millwrights and Duncan contend that both the Chrysler-Trenton
and Waterworks project were Building Trades jobs and that, because
of the Dunlop Award governing the assignment of work between
millwrights and riggers on such jobs, the Company's employment of
riggers on certain work was improper. It is also urged that General
Riggers delegated jurisdictional matters to Allen, business agent of
Riggers' Local 5T5, and, as the Riggers had agreed to be bound by
the Dunlop Award, the Company was retroactively bound by its dele-
gation to Allen. Thus, a method of voluntarily adjusting both dis-
putes existed. The Millwrights specially urge that the Board may
make no finding of violation with regard to the dispute at the Chrys-
ler-Trenton installation, for that dispute was not only voluntarily
adjusted, but Millwrights were employed in the final operations and
the work has been completed.
General Riggers contends that it was neither a signatory nor a party
to the Dunlop Award and, therefore, cannot be bound by it. More-
over, neither dispute was voluntarily adjusted. Rather, General
Riggers capitulated under pressure on the Chrysler-Trenton project.
c. Applicability of the statute
Section 10(k) of the Act empowers and directs the Board to hear
and determine disputes out of which Section 8(b) (4) (D) charges
have arisen. However, before the Board may proceed to a determina-
tion of the dispute in Section 10(k) proceedings, it must be satisfied
that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b) (4) (D)
has been violated. In order to conclude that reasonable cause exists,
the Board must find some evidence in the record showing a strike
or a concerted refusal to work, or an inducement or encouragement
of employees to engage in such conduct, for the purposes proscribed
by that Section of the Act.'
The record contains ample evidence that the Millwrights caused
work stoppages at the Chrysler-Trenton and Waterworks projects to
compel General Riggers to assign certain disputed work to Mill-
wrights rather than to the Company's own employees who belong to
the Riggers.
Although the Chrysler-Trenton job has been completed, the under-
lying dispute has not been resolved. Indeed, the work was finished
only because General Riggers acceded to the Millwrights' jurisdic-
tional claims. With regard to the Waterworks project, it was not
completed at the time of the hearing herein. We find, therefore, that
'Local 450 , International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Painting and
Decorating Contractors of America , Houston Chapter ), 119 NLRB 1725, 1729.
MILLWRIGHTS 1102, UNITED BROTHERHOOD CARPENTERS, ETC. 29
a determination of the Board is necessary and that neither of these
cases is moot.
Moreover, General Riggers is not a signatory to the Dunlop Award
relating to the disputed work and the Company's referrals of Mill-
wrights to Allen do not indicate that the handling of jurisdictional
problems had been delegated to the Riggers. Here, there is no agreed
upon method for voluntarily adjusting jurisdictional disputes such
as would free this Board from the Act's mandate to hear and deter-
mine the dispute.4
Accordingly, we find that there is reasonable cause to believe that
Millwrights and Duncan violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D). We further
find that the dispute involved in this proceeding is properly before us
for determination under Section 10 (k) of the Act.
d. Merits of the dispute
An employer is free to make work assignments without being sub-
ject to pressures by a labor organization seeking the work for its
members, unless the employer is failing thereby to conform to an order
or certification of the Board determining the.bargaining representa-
tive for employees performing such work or unless an employer is
bound by an agreement to assign the work in dispute to the claiming
union. Millwrights have no order or certification. Nor do they have
a contract claim to the work. Accordingly, we find that Millwrights
are not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4)°(D), to
force or require the Employer to assign the disputed work to Mill-
wrights rather than to Riggers. However, we are not by this action
to be regarded as assigning the work in question to the Riggers.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and from the entire
record in these cases, the Board makes the following determination of
dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act :
1. Millwrights Local 1102, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO ; Carpenters District Council of
Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinities; Charles Dun-
can, Business Agent of Local 1102, and other officers, agents, and
representatives, are not and have not been entitled, by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require Gen-
eral Riggers and Erectors, Inc., to assign the work of unloading,
handling, assembling, and adjusting machinery and machine parts to
its members rather than to members of Machinery Movers, Riggers &
4 Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters, Inc., 115 NLRB 1757, 1766-1767.
'30 '; DECISIO1 S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Machinery Erectors Local Union No. 575, International Association
of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO.
2. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, the Millwrights and Duncan, shall notify the Re-
Igional Director for the Seventh Region in writing, whether or not
they will refrain from forcing or requiring General Riggers and
Erectors, Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the
Act, to assign the disputed work to its members rather than to mem-
bers of the Riggers.
Building Service Employees International Union, Local 32-J,
AFL-CIO and Hewitt-Robins, Inc. Case No. 2-CD-177. April 5,
1960
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF THE CAn
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 practice shall have
... 11
On August 17, 1959, Hewitt-Robins, Inc., herein called Hewitt-
Robins, filed with the Regional Director for the Second Region a
charge alleging in substance that Building Service Employees Inter-
national Union, Local 32-3, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent,
had engaged in, and induced and encouraged the employees of several
employers other than Hewitt -Robins to engage in, a strike for the
purpose of forcing or requiring Hewitt-Robins to assign particular
work to members of 'Respondent rather than to employees of Hewitt-
Robins who are not members of Respondent.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act and Sections
102.89 and 102.90 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations (Series 8,
1959), the Regional Director investigated the charges and provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice to all parties. The hear-
ing was held before James J. Graham , hearing officer, on various
dates between October -29 and November 23, 1959. Hewitt-Robins
and Respondent 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. No briefs were filed by .any of the parties.
127 NLRB No. 7.