Painters Local 479 (Giltspur Expo)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 1021 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

PAINTERS LOCAL 479 (GILTSPUR EXPO) 1021
International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied
Trades of the United States and Canada, Sign,
Pictorial and Display Artists, Local Union No.
479, AFL-CIO and Giltspur Exhibits/Pitts-
burgh, A Division of Giltspur Expo Industries,
Inc. Case 6-CD-805
18 March 1986
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed 23 May 19851 by the Employer , alleging that
the Respondent, International Brotherhood of
Painters and Allied Trades of the United States and
Canada, Sign , Pictorial and Display Artists, Local
Union No. 479, AFL-CIO (Painters Local 479),
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor
Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity
with an object of forcing the Employer to assign
certain work to employees it represents rather than
to unrepresented employees of the Employer. The
hearing was held 21 October 1985 before Hearing
Officer Ilene Cohen Leefer.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer 's rulings,
finding them free from prejudicial error. On the
entire record, the Board makes the following find-
ings.
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer, a New York corporation , designs
and manufactures industrial and commercial dis-
plays and exhibits at its facility in Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania. During a 12-month period ending 30 Sep-
tember 1985, the Employer shipped from its Pitts-
burgh facility goods, products, and services valued
in excess of $50,000 directly to points located out-
side the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The par-
ties stipulate, and we find, that the Employer is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act and that Painters Local 479
is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
The Employer builds and services exhibits for
trade shows, conventions, government projects,
and museums. Some of its work involves the fabri-
cation of lettering which is placed on the exhibits.
The Respondent represents the Employer's sign
painters, photo reproduction employees, silk
screeners, sanders, and finishers, along with other
employees who are not directly involved in the
construction of exhibits. The Employer also de-
signs the exhibits, and its designers are unrepresent-
ed. In its graphics design department , it employs a
clerical worker who does typing and filing, and
who also runs various machines that produce copy
which the Painters-represented employees convert
into silk screens or other media and apply as letter-
ing on the exhibits. The clerical employee in the
graphics design department is also unrepresented.
In early December 1984, the Employer installed
a new machine, the Signmaker IV, in the graphics
design department. Like the other machines located
in graphics design, the Signmaker produces copy
which is converted to lettering for exhibits. The
Signmaker interfaces with an Apple Ile computer,
and the designers use this feature to draw design
sketches on the computer screen. In addition to
producing copy for exhibit lettering, the Signmaker
cuts letters directly out of two types of media,
vinyl and ruby or amber lith. Before the installa-
tion of the Signmaker, the Employer's sign paint-
ers, represented by the Respondent, cut letters out
of vinyl and ruby or amber lith by hand. None of
the other copy-producing machines can cut letters
out of these media.2 The Employer formerly pur-
chased many vinyl letters from outside sources, but
the sign painters cut the remainder by taking,
camera-ready art, blowing it up on paper, placing
the image onto vinyl, and cutting the letters out by
hand. For the ruby and amber lith letters, the sign
painters took copy produced on one of the older
machines, blew it up, and traced and cut the letters
by hand.. The Signmaker is operated by a key-
board. Its operator presses the appropriate keys to
determine the spacing, height, arc, and line posi-
tions for the letters, and a small knife cuts the let-
ters out of vinyl or ruby or amber lith.
The Employer assigned the operation of the
Signmaker to the unrepresented clerical in the
graphics design department. On 8 December 1984
Painters Local 479 filed a grievance against the
Employer, claiming that the collective-bargaining
agreement between . the Employer and Painters
Local 479 required the Employer to assign the op-
eration of the Signmaker to employees represented
by Painters Local 479.3 The Employer denied the
2 The other machines are the Vari-Typer, the Typositer, the Compu-
graphic Compu-Writer, and the Addressograph.
s The work jurisdiction provision of the collective -bargaining agree-
ment, art. XII, provides as follows:
' All dates refer to 1985 unless otherwise specified. Continued
278 NLRB No. 145
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
grievance on the grounds that the operation of the
Signmaker IV remains in the jurisdiction of the
Company based on the last sentence of article XII,
section 2 of the collective-bargaining agreement,
which states, "All uses of vari-typer remains [sic]
in the jurisdiction of the company." The Employer
contends that all the machines in its graphics
design department which produce copy for exhibit
lettering are vari-typers, and that the Signmaker is
simply a more sophisticated version of these ma-
chines. In addition, the Employer relied on the
Acting Regional Director's Decision and Order in
Giltspur Exhibits/Pittsburgh, Case 6-RC-9204 (Apr.
9, 1982), which held that the clerical employee
from the Employer's purchasing and production
department, who formerly operated two of the
older copy-producing machines, did not share a
sufficient community of interest to be included in
the unit consisting of the employees represented by
Painters Local 479. The Decision and Order,
which dismissed Painters Local 479's petition for a
self-determination election, for the clerical employ-
ee, was based in part on the Acting Regional Di-
rector's finding that the clerical employee, in oper-
ating the machines , used skills that were distinct
from the skills used by the Painters Local 479-rep-
resented employees in doing their work.
The Employer refused to submit to arbitration
the Respondent's grievance over the operation of
the Signmaker. In early May 1985 Painters Local
479 filed a complaint in U.S. district court, seeking
an order to compel arbitration of its grievance. The
Employer served its answer to the complaint on 28
May 1985, and as of the hearing date the parties
were still awaiting disposition by the court.
In early May the parties were engaged in negoti-
ations for a new collective -bargaining agreement.
At the outset of negotiations, the Employer was
bargaining through the Wood Manufacturing
Council, Inc., a multiemployer association which
included one other Pittsburgh-based exhibit manu-
facturer, Creative Productions, , Inc.. Richard
Kramer, the Employer's operations manager, testi-
fied that at a negotiating session on 2 May 1985,
Section 1 Local Union No. 479's work shall be the making of signs
and lettering , and pictorial work of any kind and the preparing for
the finishing of the same , be it by hand, brush, roller, screen , photo,
or spray and including all art work and lettering, also any paint
work done on Employer's premises not let out on outside contract
providing they possess the necessary skills
Section 2 . Their jurisdiction will include all art work , lettering, and
all processes of silk screen work , photo screen, sanding, finishing,
painting, and truck driving, warehouse supervising, janitorial, etc ,
historically performed by members of Local Union No. 479 All uses
of vari-typer remains [sic] in the jurisdiction of the company.
The collective-bargaining agreement also contained a grievance proce-
dure for disputes "arising out of the interpretation of this agreement"
The last step of the grievance procedure was an appeal to arbitration
The collective -bargaining agreement expired 31 May 1985
Jack Barrett, the Respondent's business manager,
took the Employer's representatives aside and said
that the employees were upset and "They would
not sign a contract and they refused to work with-
out one as long as a clerical person was- running
the machine, meaning the Signmaker IV." Walter
Loos, the Employer's controller, corroborated Kra-
mer's testimony. Both Kramer and Loos were
present at the negotiating meeting on 2 May 1985.
Barrett denied making any threats of a strike and
testified that at no time did he say that the employ-
ees would not work.
At a later negotiating session on 20 May 1985,
Barrett told the management negotiators that the
employees represented by Painters Local 479
would vote on separate contracts with the Employ-
er and with Creative Productions, Inc. Barrett tes-
tified that Creative Productions, Inc. assigned the
operation of its Signmaker IV machine to an em-
ployee represented by Painters Local 479. The par-
ties subsequently agreed to postpone further con-
tract negotiations between the Employer and Paint-
ers Local 479 until the suit to compel arbitration of
the grievance concerning Signmaker's operation
was resolved.
The Employer filed the charge in the instant
case on 23 May 1985. On 31 May 1985 Painters
Local 479's attorney sent a letter to the Employer's
attorney, stating:
To clarify the Union's position, the Union will
not authorize a strike or threat of a strike on
the issue of Signmaker IV pending the resolu-
tion of the Complaint filed by the Union
against the Employer in [the suit to compel ar-
bitration]. If you wish to select an arbitrator,
please call me. [Emphasis in original.]
B. Work in Dispute
The work in dispute is the operation of the Sign-
maker IV machine to cut vinyl letters and letters
made of ruby or amber lith.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that a jurisdictional dis-
pute exists because Painters Local 479 threatened
to strike if the Employer continued to assign the
operation of the Signmaker IV machine to cut let-
ters to the unrepresented clerical rather than to an
employee represented by Painters Local 479. The
Employer asserts that the contractual grievance
procedure is not a voluntary method for resolving
the dispute because it does not bind one of the par-
ties to the dispute, the unrepresented clerical em-
ployee. On the merits of the dispute, the Employer
urges that the assignment be made in favor of the
. PAINTERS LOCAL 479 (GILTSPUR EXPO) 1023
unrepresented clerical employee based on the col-
lective-bargaining agreement , the Employer 's pref-
erence and past practice , the relative skills of the
clerical employee in operating keyboard machines
versus those of the employees represented by
Painters Local 479, area practice , and economy
and efficiency of operation.
Painters Local 479 filed a motion to quash the
notice of hearing , claiming that no jurisdictional
dispute exists over which the Board has jurisdiction
under Section 10(k) of the Act. First, the Respond-
ent claims that the notice of hearing was too broad
because it stated that the dispute concerns the op-
eration of Signmaker IV, while the Respondent
claims its operation for the employees . it represents
only to the extent that it performs work historical-
ly performed by Painters Local 479-represented
employees. Second , the Respondent asserts that
there is no reasonable cause to believe that Section
8(b)(4)(D) has been violated because it did not
threaten to strike over the issue of the work assign-
ment , and there has been no strike or picketing
over the issue . Finally , the Respondent contends
that the Board does not have jurisdiction to make a
determination under Section 10(k) of the Act be-
cause the contractual grievance and arbitration
procedure provides an agreed-upon method for the
voluntary resolution of the dispute. Should the
Board reach the merits of the dispute, Painters
Local 479 argues that the Board should determine
the assignment of Signmaker 's operation in favor of
the employees it represents whenever the machine
performs functions historically performed by those
employees. The Respondent relies on the Employ-
er's preference and past practice of assigning such
work to Painters Local 479-represented employees;
the collective-bargaining agreement ; area practice;
the relative skills and abilities of the Painters -repre-
sented employees in doing work associated with
the measuring , spacing , and construction of letter-
ing; and economy and efficiency of operation.
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed to a determina-
tion pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must
be satisfied that (1) there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated, and
(2) the parties have not agreed on a method for the
voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
With regard to (1) above , Painters Local 479
claimed that the Employer should have assigned
the operation of Signmaker IV to the employees it
represents rather than to an unrepresented clerical
employee in the grievance it filed on 8 December
1984, and it continues to pursue that claim in its
suit to compel arbitration of the grievance. Al-
though Painters Local 479 now claims that the as-
signment it seeks does not encompass the operation
of Signmaker for all the functions it performs, as
implied in the grievance , it still asserts its claim for
operation of the machine when it performs work
historically performed by employees it represents,
i.e., the cutting of letters out of vinyl and ruby or
amber lith.
The testimony of the Employer 's operations
manager and its controller establishes that during
contract negotiations Painters Local 479's business
manager , Jack Barrett , threatened a work stoppage
if the Employer did not reassign the operation of
the Signmaker from the unrepresented clerical to
Painters-represented employees . Although Barrett
denied that he threatened a work stoppage, it is
well settled that a conflict in testimony does not"
prevent the Board from proceeding under Section
10(k); it is not necessary to find that a violation did
in fact occur, but only that reasonable cause exists
to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violat-
ed.4 Similarly , the letter written by the Respond-
ent's attorney a week after the Employer filed the
charge in this proceeding appears to conflict with
the testimony of the Employer's operations manag-
er and its controller . Because the Respondent
denies that any threats were ever . made , the letter
does not retract the alleged threats made by Bar-
rett at the contract negotiating session on 2 May
1985 .8 Accordingly, we find reasonable cause to
believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has
occurred.
With regard to (2) above, Painters Local 479
contends that the grievance and arbitration article
of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Em-
ployer comprises a method for the voluntary ad-
justment of the dispute. Although the collective-
bargaining agreement contains a work jurisdiction
provision which applies to the dispute and which
falls within the purview of the grievance and arbi-
tration procedure, the contractual grievance proce-
dure applies to disputes between the Employer and
Painters Local 479 and is not binding on the unrep-
resented clerical employee to whom the Employer
assigned the operation of Signmaker IV. No party
contends and no evidence was presented that there
exists an agreed -upon method for the voluntary
resolution of the dispute which is binding on all the
parties. 6 Accordingly, we conclude that the dispute
4 Laborers Local 721 (Bechtel Construction), 277 NLRB No. 150 (Jan. 7,
1986); Laborers Local 334 (C. H. Heist Corp.), 175 NLRB 608 ( 1969).
° To the extent that the letter could be considered a retraction , howev-
er, it is conditional at best , because it states that the Respondent would
not authorize a strike or a threat of a strike pending the resolution of its
complaint in the suit to compel arbitration. See Paper Workers Local 194
(Georgia Pacific Corp), 267 NLRB 26, 28 (1983).
° See Carpenters Local 953 (T & P Iron Works), 266 NLRB 617,1618
(1983).
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 considering
various factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW
Local 1212 (Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573
(1961). The Board has held that its determination in
a jurisdictional dispute is an act of judgment based
on common sense and experience, reached by bal-
ancing the factors involved in a particular case.
Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction),
135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in determining
this dispute.
1. Certifications and collective-bargaining
agreements
No party has contended and there is no evidence
that Painters Local 479 has been certified by the
Board as collective-bargaining representative either
for the employees it has represented under collec-
tive-bargaining agreements with the Employer or
for the unrepresented clerical employee in the Em-
ployer's graphics design department.
The collective-bargaining agreement in effect at
the time the Employer assigned the work in dis-
pute contains a work jurisdiction provision, article
XII.7 Section 1 states that the work of the Painters
Local 479-represented employees shall include "all
art work and lettering." This provision, however,
which by itself would encompass the cutting of let-
ters from vinyl and ruby or amber lith, is qualified
by preceding language which states "be it by hand,
brush, roller, screen, or spray." The Respondent
primarily relies on section 2 of article XII, which
provides that the jurisdiction of the Painters Local
479-represented employees includes all art work
and lettering "historically performed by members
of Local Union No. 479." Although the last sen-
tence of section 2 provides that "all uses of vari-
typer remains [sic] in the jurisdiction of the compa-
ny," Painters Local 479 contends that the Sign-
maker IV is not a vari-typer because all the other
machines the Employer claims are vari-typers
cannot cut out letters from vinyl and ruby or
amber lith.
No witness testified with any certainty that there
is a group of machines which are known in the in-
dustry as "vari-typers," that all the copy-producing
machines owned by the Employer are known as
vari-typers, or that the Signmaker IV is known in
the industry as a vari-typer. George Keener, the
7 See fn 3, supra
supervisor in the Employer's graphics design de-
partment , testified that the term "vari-typer" refers
to the ability of a machine to "vary type," i.e., to
choose different styles, or "fonts" for the lettering
on the copy which they produce. All the Employ-
er's machines , including the Signmaker, have this
capability to some extent. Of the five machines
now owned by the Employer, only one, the first
machine installed by the Employer, is actually
called a vari-typer, although a photograph of one
of the later machines, the Addressograph, shows
the label "vari-typer" printed on the side of the
component of the machine that stores files. The
original Vari-Typer, unlike the later models in-
stalled by the Employer, and unlike the Signmaker,
was not operated by a keyboard; the operator used
replaceable disks to punch out the letters for the
copy it produced.
At the time the parties entered into the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, the Employer did not
own a machine that had the capability of perform-
ing work that was historically performed by Paint-
ers Local 479-represented employees. Because we
find that the disputed work is not clearly addressed
in article XII, we conclude that the factor of col-
lective-bargaining agreements is inconclusive.
2. Company preference and past practice
The Employer's operations manager, Richard
Kramer, testified that the Employer prefers to
assign the operation of Signmaker IV for the cut-
ting of letters from vinyl and ruby or amber lith to
the unrepresented clerical employee, and that its
past practice has been to assign the operation of
the copy-producing machines to clerical employees
or to designers when they are used for design pur-
poses. Before installing the Signmaker, the Em-
ployer purchased many of its vinyl letters from
outside suppliers. The vinyl letters that the Em-
ployer did produce were cut by hand by Painters
Local 479-represented' employees.
The Employer's preference and past practice has
been to assign the operation of its keyboard-operat-
ed copy producing machines, including the Sign-
maker IV, to clerical employees. Accordingly, we
find this factor favors an award of the work in dis-
pute to the unrepresented clerical employee in the
graphics design department.
3. Area and industry practice
Operations Manager Kramer's testimony estab-
lishes that in a tristate area (Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, and Ohio) 33 of 35 employers assign the
operation of their Signmakers to clerical or admin-
istrative employees. According to the Respondent's
business manager , Barrett, three employers in Pitts-
PAINTERS LOCAL 479 (GILTSPUR EXPO)
burgh where Painters Local 479 represents employ-
ees in the sign shop assign the operation of their
Signmakers to Painters Local 479-represented em-
ployees . The testimony of Kramer and Barrett con-
flicted on whether one of the employers in Pitts-
burgh surveyed by Barrett assigns ' the operation of
its Signmaker to a Painters Local 479-represented
employee.
In view of the overwhelming number of employ-
ers in the tristate area who assign the operation of
their Signmakers to clerical or administrative em-
ployees, we find that the factor of area and indus-
try practice favors an award of the work in dispute
to the unrepresented clerical employee in the
graphics design department.
4. Relative skills
Lisa Mason , the unrepresented clerical employee
who operates the Signmaker IV to perform the
work in dispute , types 60 words a minute . Thomas
Chamberlain , the foreman of the sign shop. and a
former journeyman sign painter , testified that he
"hunts and pecks" on a typewriter, and Edward
Crail, a photoscreener, types 20 words a minute.
The record is unclear how important typing speed
is in the operation of Signmaker IV; Operations
Manager Kramer testified that it is possible to type
slowly with two fingers because the operator has a
lot of time to enter the necessary commands and
letters . Mason , however, has extensive experience
in operating keyboard machines which require the
entering of a relatively complex series of com-
mands .8 She has operated all of the Employer's
copy-producing machines , which , like the Sign-
maker, have keyboard commands for letter height,
spacing , font, arc, and line position. The Signmaker
also has keys for italicizing copy and an "X/Y"
command which assists in line positioning and
other functions relating to the design of the letter-
ing. The Painters-represented employees have
never operated any keyboard equipment. Their
tools are art supplies such as paint , rollers, spray
guns, T-squares, and silk screen equipment. Al-
though the Painters Local 479 -represented employ-
ees are skilled in determining the specifications that
are required to produce exhibit lettering , such as
spacing , font , height, and arc, they are not skilled
in entering these commands on a keyboard -operat-
ed machine like the Signmaker IV.
Mason 's training on Signmaker IV consisted of 1
day of instruction from the retailer who sold the
machine to the Employer . The Respondent con-
9 Although Kramer also testified that Mason took some computer
courses in a community college , the Signmaker does not require comput-
er skills except to the extent that the designers use it in conjunction with
the Apple lie computer.
1025
tends that the employees it represents could learn
to operate the machine as efficiently as Mason with
the same amount of training , because they already
have the background in determining the specifica-
tions for constructing exhibit lettering . The Re-
spondent cites the fact that George Keener, the
graphics design manager who supervises Mason,
was formerly a Painters Local 479-represented em-
ployee and he has the same skills and experience as
the employees presently in the bargaining unit.
Keener, however, testified that he learned to oper-
ate the machine from Mason herself , and he oper-
ates it slowly and inefficiently because he does not
have Mason 's skills in entering commands on a
keyboard . His primary function is to determine the
specifications for the exhibit lettering and to relay
those specifications to Mason , who then enters
them into the Signmaker.
In view of Mason 's extensive skills in operating
keyboard machines , which are not possessed by the
Painters Local 479 -represented employees, we find
that the factor of relative skills favors an award of
the work in dispute to the unrepresented clerical
employee in the graphics design department.
5. Economy and efficiency of operation
The Employer charges its customers an hourly
fee for the time its employees spend operating
Signmaker IV. The Employer charges the same
rate ($60/hr .) regardless of which employee is op-
erating the Signmaker , and contends it is more eco-
nomical to assign the operation to the employee
who can operate most efficiently. In view of
Mason's extensive skills in operating keyboard
equipment, she is capable of operating the machine
faster and more efficiently than the Painters Local
479-represented employees.
The Employer installed the Signmaker IV in the
graphics design department where the other copy-
producing machines that Mason . operates are locat-
ed. Thus, Mason can enter a job into the machine
and, while waiting for it to print out the letters, she
can work on another nearby machine . Mason can
move from machine to machine in this manner
while working on a single exhibit project , because
several machines are often used for one job. Mason
performs her clerical duties at a station 20 to 25
feet from the Signmaker.
The Painters Local 479-represented employees
work in the sign shop, 450 feet away from the
Signmaker, and- would have to leave their work in
the sign shop to operate the machine. Edward
Crail, a photoscreener, testified that it might take
him 5 minutes to finish a project he was doing
before he could come to the Graphics Design De-
partment to work on the Signmaker . Both Oper-
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ations Manager Kramer and Graphics Design Su-
pervisor Keener testified that the Employer does
not favor moving the Signmaker to the sign shop.
Keener testified that some areas of the sign shop
are filled with dirt, dust, and paint, and that these
particles might detrimentally affect the operation of
the machine . In addition , the Signmaker is located
just below the design department, so the designers
can come down one flight of stairs to use it for
their design work, which is not in dispute.
In view of the economy achieved by assigning
the Signmaker to a more efficient keyboard opera-
tor, and the labor saved by assigning it to the em-
ployee who works in the same office on other ma-
chines performing similar functions, we find that
the factor of economy and efficiency of operation
favors an award of the disputed work to the unrep-
resented clerical employee in the Graphics Design
Department.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we
conclude that the unrepresented clerical employee
in the Employer 's Graphics Design Department is
entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach
this conclusion relying on the Employer's prefer-
ence and past practice, area and industry practice,
relative skills, and economy and efficiency of oper-
ation. The determination is limited to the contro-
versy that gave rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the
following Determination of Dispute.
1. The unrepresented clerical employee in the
graphics design department of Giltspur Exhib-
its/Pittsburgh, a Division of Giltspur Expo Indus-
tries, Inc., is entitled to operate the Signmaker IV
machine to cut letters out of vinyl and ruby or
amber lith at the Giltspur Exhibits facility in Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania.
2. International Brotherhood of Painters and
Allied Trades of the United States and Canada,
Sign , Pictorial and Display Artists, Local Union
No. 479, AFL-CIO, is not entitled by means pro-
scribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force
Giltspur Exhibits/Pittsburgh to assign the disputed
work to employees represented by it.
3. Within 10 days from this date, International
Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades of the
United States and Canada, Sign , Pictorial and Dis-
play Artists, Local Union No. 479, AFL-CIO,
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 6 in
writing whether it will refrain from forcing the
Employer , by means proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(D), to assign the disputed work in a manner
inconsistent with this determination.