Operating Engineers Local 150

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 2005

345 N.L.R.B. 1137 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 150 (R&D THIEL)
345 NLRB No. 94
1137
International Union of Operating Engineers Local
150, AFL–CIO and R&D Thiel, a Division of
Carpenter Contractors of America, Inc.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 3251
and R&D Thiel, a Division of Carpenter Con-
tractors of America, Inc. Cases 33–CD–444 and
33–CD–445
September 30, 2005
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
This is a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under Sec-
tion 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
R&D Thiel, a Division of Carpenter Contractors of
America, Inc. (R&D Thiel), filed charges on January 11,
2005,2 alleging that the Respondent Unions, Operating
Engineers Local 150 (Operating Engineers) and Team-
sters Local 325 (Teamsters), each violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in proscribed activity
with an object of forcing R&D Thiel to assign certain
work to employees it represents rather than to employees
represented by the other union. The hearing was held on
February 8 before Hearing Officer Nicholas M. Ohane-
sian. Thereafter, R&D Thiel filed a brief in support of its
position, and Operating Engineers filed a posthearing
brief and motion to quash the notice of hearing.3
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire re-
cord, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
R&D Thiel, a Division of Carpenter Contractors of
America, Inc., an Illinois corporation with an office and
principal place of business located at 2340 Newburg
Road, Belvidere, Illinois, and various jobsites located in
and around the State of Illinois, is engaged in the busi-
ness of construction carpentry and the manufacture of
wall, floor, and ceiling components. During the calendar
year 2004, a representative period, R&D Thiel purchased
and received goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000, which were shipped directly to its Belvidere,
Illinois facility from suppliers located outside the State of
Illinois. We accordingly find that R&D Thiel is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act. We further find, based on the stipulation of
the parties, that Operating Engineers and Teamsters are

1 We have amended the caption to reflect the disaffiliation of the In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters from the AFL–CIO effective
June 25, 2005.
2 Unless stated otherwise, all dates are in 2005.
3 Teamsters did not file a posthearing brief.
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
R&D Thiel manufactures and installs wooden building
components, including roof trusses, floor sections, and
walls, on residential jobsites in the Chicago metro area.
Crane truckdrivers employed by R&D Thiel transport
these products to its jobsites using flatbed trucks and
trailers equipped with a crane. The drivers use the cranes
to place the components on the ground, directly on build-
ings, scaffolding, or into place as required by R&D
Thiel’s customers. Since commencing operations in the
late 1970s, R&D Thiel has been a signatory to a series of
collective-bargaining agreements with Teamsters cover-
ing the drivers. The most recent agreement is effective
from July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2006.
In late October or early November 2004, Operating
Engineers Business Agent Charles August tried to per-
suade R&D Thiel’s president, Donald Reiter, to sign a
memorandum of agreement stating that R&D Thiel
would use Operating Engineers-represented employees
to operate cranes when hoisting materials onto buildings.
Reiter did not sign the agreement. Then, during the first
week of November 2004, Operating Engineers vice
president and organizing director, James Sweeney, told
two of R&D Thiel’s crane truckdrivers at the Madison
Park jobsite in Aurora, Illinois, to fold up their cranes
and leave the jobsite. Sweeney also told R&D Thiel’s
superintendent, Donald Bass, that if Bass did not get the
crane trucks off of the jobsite, Sweeney would have
pickets up by the end of the day. Also in November
2004, Operating Engineers Business Agent “Martin” told
Teamsters steward, Stephen Fletcher, that Operating En-
gineers had “a problem with everything [Teamsters] do,
except for setting the material, on the ground.”4 Martin
also said that “he would like [Teamsters] to stop doing
[Operating Engineers’] work.” Although the exact dates
and details are not discernible from the record, Reiter
testified that Operating Engineers also stopped R&D
Thiel’s crane truckdrivers from unloading materials at
R&D Thiel’s Madison Park jobsite, as well as at a sec-
ond location.
In response to Operating Engineers’ threats and de-
mands, Teamsters sent R&D Thiel a letter dated Decem-
ber 20, 2004, stating that Teamsters would picket if R&D
Thiel reassigned to Operating Engineers any of the work
performed by Teamsters.

4 Fletcher testified that the business agent’s last name was Martin,
but that he did not know “Martin’s” first name.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1138
A May 12, 2000 “Construction Site Jurisdictional
Agreement” between the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters and International Union of Operating Engi-
neers provides that the operation of cranes and crane
trucks is the jurisdiction of the Teamsters, except for the
hoisting or lowering of materials or equipment onto scaf-
folds or into place.5 That work was recognized as the
jurisdiction of the Operating Engineers. On February 8,
Teamsters Joint Council 256 and Operating Engineers
Local 150 entered into an addendum to the construction
site jurisdictional agreement adopting it with the proviso
that the hoisting of materials or equipment onto building
structures also was within the jurisdiction of Operating
Engineers.7 R&D Thiel was not a signatory to the con-
struction site jurisdictional agreement or the local adden-
dum.
Throughout the hearing, Teamsters continued to claim
generally the operation of crane trucks at R&D Thiel’s
jobsites. In fact, the hearing officer asked whether
Teamsters disclaimed the operation of crane trucks at
R&D Thiel’s jobsites, and Teamsters’ counsel answered
“no,” the work had not been disclaimed. Shortly after
making this statement, however, Teamsters adopted the
local addendum as setting forth its position. Teamsters
business representative, Tom Streck, then testified that
Teamsters-represented employees would no longer hoist
materials onto building structures at R&D Thiel jobsites.
R&D Thiel, nevertheless, continued assigning the opera-
tion of crane trucks to Teamsters, and Teamsters-
represented employees continued doing the work through
the conclusion of the hearing.

5 That agreement provided, in pertinent part:
The driving of material delivery trucks with hoisting equipment at-
tached is recognized as the jurisdiction of the Teamsters. Drivers of
this type of truck shall be permitted to unload materials at any place on
the job site as directed by the contractor’s supervisors except that he
shall not be permitted to (1) hoist materials or equipment onto scaf-
folds, (2) hoist materials or equipment into place, or (3) lower materi-
als and equipment into place. This work is recognized as the jurisdic-
tion of the Operating Engineers.
6 Teamsters Joint Council 25 is the governing body representing
Teamsters local unions in the Chicago area. See Dominick’s Finer
Foods, 308 NLRB 935, 937 (1992), enfd. 28 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 1994).
7 The local addendum provided, in pertinent part:
The driving of material delivery trucks with hoisting equipment at-
tached is recognized as the jurisdiction of the Teamsters. Drivers of
this type of truck shall be permitted to unload materials at any place on
the job site as directed by the contractor’s supervisors except that he
shall not be permitted to (1) hoist materials or equipment onto scaf-
folds or onto the building structure, (2) hoist materials or equipment
into place, or (3) lower materials and equipment into place. This work
is recognized as the jurisdiction of the Operating Engineers. [Empha-
sis in original.]
B. Work in Dispute
The Board’s notice of hearing in this proceeding stated
that the dispute concerns the following assignment: “The
operation of cranes on crane trucks at the Employer’s job
sites.” At the hearing, however, counsel for Operating
Engineers stated that it was seeking the “operation of
cranes, on crane trucks, to hoist materials or equipment,
onto the building structure . . . not . . . any other work,
including the driving of those trucks or the unloading of
those trucks.” Similarly, R&D Thiel takes the position
that the work claimed by the Operating Engineers “is
limited to the hoisting of materials onto the building it-
self.”
The positions of the parties establish that the only
work in dispute in this proceeding is the operation of
crane trucks to hoist or lower materials or equipment
onto scaffolds, building structures, or into place. Ac-
cordingly, we find that the description of the work in
dispute set forth in the notice of hearing is too broad, and
we narrow it to encompass only the operation of cranes
on crane trucks at R&D Thiel’s jobsites to hoist or lower
materials or equipment onto scaffolds, building struc-
tures, or into place. See Machinists (Hudson General
Corp.), 326 NLRB 62, 64 (1998).
C. Contentions of the Parties
R&D Thiel argues that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that Operating Engineers violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act because it stopped crane drivers
from unloading materials at R&D Thiel jobsites. R&D
Thiel also maintains that there is reasonable cause to
believe that both Unions violated the Act when they
threatened to picket. R&D Thiel further argues that no
voluntary adjustment mechanism exists and that Team-
sters has not made a valid disclaimer of the work in dis-
pute. As to the merits of the dispute, R&D Thiel con-
tends that the work in dispute should be assigned to em-
ployees represented by Teamsters, based on the collec-
tive-bargaining agreements between it and Teamsters,
employer preference and past practice, industry practice,
relative skills, prior cases, and economy and efficiency of
operations. R&D Thiel also argues that the Board should
issue a broad award, because it is likely that the dispute
will recur.
Operating Engineers moves to quash the notice of
hearing, contending that there is no reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been vio-
lated and that there is a voluntary method of resolving
this dispute. Operating Engineers also argues that during
the hearing in this case and in a letter written after the
close of the hearing in this case Teamsters effectively
disclaimed any interest in the disputed work. Operating
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 150 (R&D THIEL) 1139
Engineers further argues that the threat made by Team-
sters to picket if the work was reassigned was a sham
intended only as a maneuver to bring this dispute to a
10(k) hearing before the Board and that Teamsters never
intended to picket. In the alternative, should the Board
find that a jurisdictional dispute exists, Operating Engi-
neers argues that the disputed work should be awarded to
employees it represents, based upon training and industry
practice. Finally, Operating Engineers contends that
R&D Thiel is not entitled to a broad award.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with determining a dis-
pute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, there must be
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act has been violated. This standard requires finding
that there is reasonable cause to believe that there are
competing claims to the disputed work among rival
groups of employees and that a party has used proscribed
means to enforce its claim to the work in dispute. See
Electrical Workers, Local 3 (Slattery Skanska, Inc.), 342
NLRB 173, 174 (2004). Additionally, the Board will not
proceed under Section 10(k) if there is an agreed-upon
method for voluntary adjustment of the dispute. Id.
1. Operating Engineers’ motion to quash
As discussed above, Operating Engineers contends that
the Board should quash the notice of the 10(k) hearing
because Teamsters disclaimed the work in dispute. Ac-
cording to Operating Engineers a jurisdictional dispute
does not exist. We reject this contention for the follow-
ing reasons.
Teamsters repeatedly claimed the disputed work. For
example, in its December 20, 2004 letter to R&D Thiel,
Teamsters stated,
Teamsters Local Union 325 has been assigned to
deliver and operate the crane. We have done this for
several years.
We understand that Operating Engineers Local
150 has demanded this work. If this work is taken
from Teamsters Local 325, Teamsters Local 325 will
take action including picketing.
Teamsters further claimed this work at the hearing, and
R&D Thiel continued to assign Teamsters-represented em-
ployees to perform the work in dispute through the conclu-
sion of the hearing.
We reject Operating Engineers’ assertion that Team-
sters has effectively disclaimed the work. To be effec-
tive, a disclaimer must be a clear, unequivocal, and un-
qualified disclaimer of all interest in the work in ques-
tion. Laborers Local 79 (DNA Contracting), 338 NLRB
997, 998–999 (2003); Operating Engineers Local 150
(Interior Development), 308 NLRB 1005, 1006 (1992).
Conduct inconsistent with a disclaimer militates against
its effectiveness. Thus, an otherwise clear and unequivo-
cal disclaimer may be rendered ineffective by subsequent
union conduct manifesting a continuing jurisdictional
claim. DNA Contracting, supra.
The local addendum to the construction site jurisdic-
tional agreement recognizes the work in dispute as within
the jurisdiction of the Operating Engineers. However, at
the hearing in this case on the same day that the parties
executed the agreement, Teamsters’ counsel stated that
Teamsters did not disclaim the operation of crane trucks
at R&D Thiel’s jobsites. In addition, the Teamsters con-
tinued to perform the work through the conclusion of the
hearing. For these reasons, we find Teamsters’ alleged
disclaimer ineffective. DNA Contracting, supra; Labor-
ers Local 81 (Kenny Construction Co.), 338 NLRB 977,
978 (2003).8
2. Competing claims to work in dispute
As discussed above, in a December 20, 2004 letter to
R&D Thiel, Teamsters claimed the work in dispute. Ad-
ditionally, Operating Engineers Business Agent Martin
told R&D Thiel employee Fletcher that Operating Engi-
neers had “a problem with everything [Teamsters] do,
except for setting the material, on the ground” and that
he “would like [Teamsters] to stop doing [Operating En-
gineers’] work.” Operating Engineers also asked R&D
Thiel to sign a memorandum of agreement stating that it
would use Operating Engineers-represented employees
to operate cranes when hoisting materials onto buildings.
Accordingly, we find that there are competing claims to
the disputed work.
3. Use of proscribed means
As discussed above, Operating Engineers threatened to
picket R&D Thiel’s jobsites if the disputed work was not
reassigned to employees it represented and told R&D
Thiel’s crane truckdrivers to fold up their cranes and
leave the jobsite. The fact that Operating Engineers de-
nied making these threats is inconsequential to the rea-
sonable cause determination.9

8 Operating Engineers argues that a March 4 letter from Teamsters to
Joint Council 25 further demonstrates that Teamsters has disclaimed
the work in dispute. Although the letter was sent after the record in this
proceeding had closed, Operating Engineers did not file a motion to
reopen the record, but instead attached a copy of the letter to its
posthearing brief. We therefore do not consider the March 4 letter. See
Sec.102.48(d)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. Because we
decline to consider Teamsters’ letter, we find it unnecessary to pass on
R&D Thiel’s motion to strike the letter or reopen the record, or on the
Operating Engineers’ opposition to that motion.
9 Conflicting versions of events do not prevent the Board from pro-
ceeding under Sec. 10(k) The Board need not rule on the credibility of
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1140
Teamsters also threatened to picket if R&D Thiel reas-
signed the work in dispute to Operating Engineers. Op-
erating Engineers argues that the Teamsters’ threat was a
sham intended only as a maneuver to bring this dispute to
a 10(k) hearing before the Board and that the Teamsters
never intended to picket. This argument primarily relies
upon the testimony of R&D Thiel’s President Reiter,
who stated that Teamsters wanted him “to file a 10(k)”
and that he was not sure Teamsters would have followed
through on its threat if the work had been reassigned.
Contrary to the Operating Engineers’ characterization,
Reiter’s testimony does not demonstrate that he admitted
to collusion. In the absence of affirmative evidence that
a threat to take proscribed action was a sham or was the
product of collusion, the Board will find reasonable
cause to believe that the statute has been violated. La-
borers Local 271 (New England Foundation Co.), 341
NLRB 533, 534–535 (2004) (citing Laborers Indiana
District Council (E&B Paving, Inc.), 340 NLRB 1256
(2003)). Therefore, we find that there is reasonable
cause to believe that both Unions used proscribed means
to enforce their claim to the work in dispute.
4. No voluntary method for adjustment of dispute
The record does not establish that all of the parties
have agreed to a voluntary method for adjustment of this
dispute. Operating Engineers urges the Board to find
that the construction site jurisdictional agreement and the
local addendum are an agreed-upon method for voluntary
adjustment of the dispute. However, R&D Thiel is not a
party to these agreements and is not bound by them. It is
well settled that all parties to the dispute must be bound
if an agreement is to constitute “an agreed method of
voluntary adjustment.” E&B Paving, 340 NLRB at
1259. Thus, we find no such agreement exists here.
In sum, we find there is reasonable cause to believe
that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred and
that there exists no agreed-upon method for voluntary
adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section
10(k) of the Act. For the above reasons, we find that the
dispute is properly before the Board for determination,
and we deny Operating Engineers’ motion to quash the
notice of the hearing.
E. Merits of the Dispute
The grant of authority in Section 10(k) for the Board to
“hear and determine” jurisdictional disputes requires the
Board to make an affirmative award of the disputed work
to one of the groups of employees involved in the dis-

testimony in order to proceed to a determination of the dispute, because
the Board need only find reasonable cause to believe that Operating
Engineers and Teamsters violated the statute. Slattery Skanska, supra,
slip op. at 3 fn. 5.
pute. NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1212 (Columbia
Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573, 579 (1961). While the Act
does not set out the standards the Board is to apply in
making this determination, the Supreme Court has ex-
plained that “[e]xperience and common sense will supply
the grounds for the performance of this job which Con-
gress has assigned the Board.” Id. at 583. Consistent
with the Court’s opinion, the Board announced in Ma-
chinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction), 135
NLRB 1402, 1410–1411 (1962), that in making the de-
termination that the Supreme Court found was required
by Section 10(k), the Board would consider “all relevant
factors,” and that its determination in a jurisdictional
dispute would be an act of judgment based on common
sense and experience, reached by balancing the factors
involved in a particular case. See generally Slattery
Skanska, supra, slip op. at 3–4.
We have considered the following factors, which we
find relevant in the context of the current dispute and, for
the reasons set forth more fully below, we conclude that
R&D Thiel’s employees represented by Teamsters are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. In making this
determination, we emphasize that we are awarding the
work to R&D Thiel’s employees represented by Team-
sters, not to that Union or its members.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining agreements
There is no evidence of any Board certifications con-
cerning the employees involved in this dispute. Accord-
ingly, we find that the factor of Board certifications does
not favor awarding the disputed work to employees rep-
resented by either Union. See Slattery Skanska, supra,
slip op. at 4; Iron Workers Local 1 (Goebel Forming,
Inc.), 340 NLRB 1158, 1161 (2003).
R&D Thiel’s collective-bargaining agreement with
Teamsters explicitly covers crane truckdrivers, and R&D
Thiel employs Teamsters-represented employees to per-
form the disputed work.10 In contrast, R&D Thiel does
not have a collective-bargaining agreement with Operat-
ing Engineers. Accordingly, the factor of collective-
bargaining agreements favors awarding the work in dis-
pute to employees represented by Teamsters.
2. Employer preference, current assignment,
and past practice
R&D Thiel, in accordance with its preference, and
consistent with its practice of 20 years, has assigned the
disputed work to employees represented by Teamsters.

10 Art. 2, sec. 2.2 of the collective-bargaining agreement states, “This
agreement covers . . . crane truck drivers . . . and drivers or helpers
operating . . . crane trucks; and engaged in the delivery, loading and
unloading of lumber, lumber products, millwork, trim and building
materials from yards, and warehouses, or mills. . . .”
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 150 (R&D THIEL) 1141
We find that R&D Thiel’s preference, current assign-
ment, and past practice favor awarding the disputed work
to employees represented by Teamsters.
3. Area and industry practice
The parties presented no evidence with respect to in-
dustry practice. With respect to area practice, there is
evidence that both Unions have performed the disputed
work in the past in the relevant geographic area. Al-
though the Teamsters perform this work at more area
employers than the Operating Engineers, we do not find
that the factor of area practice favors awarding the dis-
puted work to either employee group.
4. Prior cases
R&D Thiel relies on Operating Engineers Local 150
(Components, Inc.), 197 NLRB 569 (1972), in support of
its contention that precedent dictates that the hoisting or
lowering of materials onto buildings, scaffolding, and
into place must be awarded to Teamsters. In Compo-
nents, Inc., the work in dispute was the operation of
cranes in moving component parts from trucks onto
buildings. The Board awarded the work to employees
represented by Teamsters instead of employees repre-
sented by Operating Engineers. The Board has awarded
the operation of crane trucks to Teamsters-represented
employees in other cases involving various Operating
Engineers locals as well. See Teamsters Local 420 (Stief
Co.), 313 NLRB 814 (1994); Operating Engineers Local
12 (Stief Co West), 306 NLRB 580 (1992); Operating
Engineers Local 965 (Twin-State Gang Nail Structures),
249 NLRB 894 (1980); Operating Engineers Local 12
(Associated Concrete Products), 224 NLRB 1609
(1976). While these cases are not accorded controlling
weight in our determination of the dispute in the instant
case, they are factors that we have considered since the
factual situations in this case are similar. Consequently,
precedent favors an award of the disputed work to em-
ployees represented by Teamsters. See Laborers Local
910 (Brockway Glass), 226 NLRB 142, 144–145
(1976).11
5. Relative skills and experience
Since 1976, R&D Thiel has employed Teamsters-
represented employees and provides them with 6 weeks
of on-the-job training. During this training, a new em-
ployee works with one of R&D Thiel’s operators.
Gradually, as the new employee gains skills, the em-
ployee works with less and less supervision. Employees
represented by Operating Engineers receive training at
the Union’s training school and not on the job. This

11 Member Liebman finds it unnecessary to rely on prior cases in de-
termining this dispute.
training includes classroom work, as well as testing. In
Laborers (Henkels & McKoy, Inc.), 336 NLRB 1044,
1045 (2001), the Board found that the factor of relative
skills and training favored employees who had satisfied
greater training requirements as part of a formal union
training program. Because employees represented by
either Union in this case have the necessary skills and
training to perform the work in dispute, however, we find
that the factor of relative skills and experience does not
favor awarding the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by either Union. Laborers Local 113 (Joseph
Lorenz, Inc.), 303 NLRB 379, 380 (1991).
6. Economy and efficiency of operations
R&D Thiel does not employ employees represented by
Operating Engineers. Further, R&D Thiel asserts that it
is more economical and efficient for it to continue to use
employees represented by Teamsters rather than employ-
ees represented by Operating Engineers. If the Employer
used Operating Engineers-represented employees to hoist
or lower materials onto buildings, scaffolding, or into
place, Teamsters-represented employees would drive the
crane to the jobsite. Then Operating Engineers-
represented employees would hoist the materials onto the
buildings, scaffolding, or into place. The employees
represented by Teamsters would then return to drive the
crane away. In other words, one group of employees
would sit idle while the other group of employees
worked. Consequently, R&D Thiel would face addi-
tional costs if it hired employees represented by Operat-
ing Engineers to perform the work in dispute while also
retaining employees represented by Teamsters. Accord-
ingly, this factor supports awarding the disputed work to
employees represented by the Teamsters.
CONCLUSION
After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude
that employees represented by Teamsters are entitled to
continue performing the work in dispute at the jobsites
that gave rise to this dispute. We reach this conclusion
relying on the factors of collective-bargaining agree-
ments, employer preference, employer past practice,
prior cases, and economy and efficiency of operations.
In making this determination, we award the work to em-
ployees represented by Teamsters, not to that labor or-
ganization or its members.
Scope of Award
R&D Thiel seeks a broad, areawide award that encom-
passes “all future jobs,” and claims that the dispute is
likely to recur. The Board, however, customarily de-
clines to grant an areawide award in cases in which the
charged party represents the employees to whom the
work is awarded and to whom the employer contem-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1142
plates continuing to assign the work. See, e.g. Bricklay-
ers (Cretex Construction Services), 343 NLRB 1030,
1033 (2004); Plumbers Local 562 (Charles E. Jarrell
Contracting), 329 NLRB 529, 534 (1999). Accordingly,
we shall limit the present determination to the work ju-
risdiction dispute that gave rise to these proceedings.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow-
ing Determination of Dispute.
1. Employees of R&D Thiel represented by Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 325 are entitled to
operate cranes or crane trucks, at R&D Thiel’s jobsites
that gave rise to this proceeding, to hoist or lower mate-
rials or equipment onto scaffolds, building structures, or
into place.
2. International Union of Operating Engineers Local
150, AFL–CIO is not entitled by means proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force R&D Thiel to as-
sign the disputed work to employees represented by it.
3. Within 14 days from this date, International Union
of Operating Engineers Local 150, AFL–CIO shall notify
the Regional Director for Region 33 in writing whether it
will refrain from forcing R&D Thiel by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) to assign the disputed work
in a manner inconsistent with this determination.