194 N.L.R.B. 1137 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

Pipefitters, Local 32

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 19, 1972

194 N.L.R.B. 1137 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

PIPEFIITERS , LOCAL 32 1137 United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, and its Local 32 and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, and its Local 104 and Lockheed Shipbuilding and Construction Company and Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge No. '79, AFL-CIO. Cases 19-CD-186 and 19-CD-187. January 19, 1972 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY This is a consolidated proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed by Lockheed Shipbuilding and Construction Company.' It is alleged in Case 19--CD-186 that United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, and its Local 32,2 violated 'Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain pros- cribed activity with an object of forcing Lockheed to assign the work in dispute to employees represented by Plumbers rather than to employees represented by International Association of Machinists and Aeros- pace Workers, Lodge No. 79, AFL-CIO.3 In Case 19-CD-187 it is alleged that International Brother- hood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Black- smiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, and its Local 104,4 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain proscribed activity with an object of forcing Lockheed to assign the work in dispute therein to employees represented by Boilermakers rather than to employees of Lockheed represented by Machinists .5 Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Ralph G. Wilmot, Jr., on September 1 Hereinafter Lockheed. 2 Hereinafter Plumbers 3 Hereinafter Machinists 4 Hereinafter Boilermakers. 5 At the hearing, Boilermakers intervened in Case 19-CD-186 claiming an interest in the disputed work. Plumbers and Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, 1:ocal 99; AFL-CIO, hereinafter Sheet Metal Workers, intervened in Case 19-CD-187 on the basis of their collective- bargaining agreements with Lockheed . Sheet Metal Workers did not file a brief with the Board or argue orally at the hearing. 6 The Hearing Officer referred to the Board Machinists motion to dismiss the charge in Case 19-CD-186 on the ground that an agreement had been reached between Plumbers and Machinists concerning the disputed work in which Lockheed had concurred . in view of our decision and determination herein, Machinists motion to dismiss is hereby denied. After the hearing was closed, Sheet Metal Workers filed with the Board a petition to reopen the hearing for the purpose of taking additional 14, 15, 16, 17, and 20, 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. Thereafter, Plumbers, Boilermakers, Lockheed, and. Machinists filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed.6 The Board has considered the briefs and the entire record in this proceeding and hereby makes the following findings: 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Lockheed, a Nevada corporation, is engaged in Seattle, Washington, in shipbuilding, ship repair, steel fabrication, crane manufacturing, and heavy con- struction. During the past calendar year Lockheed performed shipbuilding work for the United States Department of the Navy valued in excess of $50 million. The parties stipulated, and we find, that Lockheed is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties stipulated, and we find, that Plumbers, Machinists, Boilermakers, and Sheet Metal Workers are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE DISPUTE A. Background and Facts 1. Case 19-CD-186 Lockheed, which has been constructing and repair- ing destroyers for the Navy at its Seattle shipyard testimony concerning the disputed work in Case 19-CD-187 In an affidavit submitted with the petition, Sheet Metal Workers Business Manager Croake asserted that despite diligent efforts to obtain counsel, the union was unable to secure representation by an attorney at the hearing and therefore its position was inadequately presented . By letter dated October 29, 1971, Machinists opposed the petition contending that Sheet Metal Workers was represented, throughout the hearing ,by itsJnternational representative, Lubetich : Sheet Metal Workers was duly served with the notice of hearing and other relevant documents in this proceeding . We find that Sheet Metal Workers was duly notified about the hearing , that it was represented at the hearing , and moreover , that the additional evidence sought to be adduced by Sheet Metal Workers would not require a different result in Case 19-CD-187 Accordingly, Sheet Metal Workers petition to reopen bearing for the purpose of taking additional testimony is hereby denied Lockheed's unopposed motion to correct the official report of proceedings is hereby granted. 194 NLRB No. 180 1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD since early 1960, currently has three destroyers under construction. On July 6, 1971,7 Lockheed's industrial relations director, Olson, met with Plumbers Business Repre- sentative McCaffery and several Plumbers shop stewards to discuss Plumbers claim that the work of installing resilient mounts and pipe hangers on destroyers under construction belonged to its mem- bers rather than to Lockheed employees represented by Machinists. Machinists Chief Steward Delmore told Olson then that machinists had performed the work on previously constructed destroyers. After verifying through discussions with Lockheed manage- ment personnel that the work sought by Plumbers had been performed in the past by machinists, Olson, at a meeting that day with all interested parties, informed the Plumbers that the work would not be reassigned by Lockheed to Pipefitters. McCaffery then indicated to Olson that he would order his men to remove and reinstall any mount thereafter installed by Machinists members. During the afternoon of July 7, pipefitters, repre- sented by Plumbers, left the ships on which they were working and assembled in the yard. Olson met there with Plumbers Chief Steward Birdsill and other union stewards. The stewards told Olson that the Union was tired of Lockheed's giving away their members' work and that the men would not go back to the ships until the work was reassigned to pipefitters. Olson replied that he had discussed the matter on July 6 and if the men had a complaint, it should be taken through channels by Plumbers Business Agent McCaffery, who was not present at the July 7 meeting in the yard. The stewards also mentioned to Olson that Plumbers members should be assigned certain coil mounting and hole drilling tasks. Olson thereafter told the stewards that he was not going to have a discussion in the middle of the shipyard while the men were off the job. He told them to have the men go home or go back to work. After a steward announced that the pipefitters might as well go home because Plumbers would not have anything resolved then, all 250 pipefitters employed in Lock- heed's yard 2 left work 1 hour early. All piping work ceased on the destroyers then under construction. - Olson contacted McCaffery but the next morning the pipefitters could not be persuaded by their business agent to return to work. On July 12, Lockheed reached an agreement- with Plumbers International Representative Orr designed to termi- nate the work stoppage. Plumbers ordered its mem- bers back to work on July 13 and Lockheed, pursuant to the settlement, did no work on resilient mounts until July 19, during which period the Unions tried but failed to reach an accord concerning the dispute satisfactory to Lockheed. When on July 19 Lockheed resumed using machinists to install resilient mounts on destroyers, as it had in the past, pipefitters remained on the job. At the commencement of the hearing herein, Lockheed, Machinists, and Plumbers agreed to resolve the dispute in the, following manner: ' Resilient Hangers. A composite crew, consisting of a machinist and pipefitter, will install the resilient hangers in the following manner. A machinist will drill the holes unless predrilled and install the resilient pad. The pipefitter will locate and secure the hanger to the pipe. In the matter of spring loaded hangers the machinists will drill holes. Pipefitters will install hangers and bring pipe up to grade. The machinist will set hanger to necessary poundage or torque. Hangers requiring microme- ter dimensions, or use of feeler, gauges, will be installed'by pipefitters, and set by machinists. Lockheed, at the hearing, sought to withdraw the charge filed on July 9 in Case 19-CD-186 against Plumbers, in view of the above tripartite accord, but Boilermakers intervened in the proceeding, claiming an interest in the disputed work and opposed the agreement. The Regional Director for Region 19 thereupon refused to permit withdrawal of the charge. 2. Case 19-CD-187 Boilermakers Chief Shop Steward Newhard, on July 6, complained to Lockheed that machinists were doing the boilermakers work of drilling holes for and installing cooling coils on Destroyer Escort 1069. Olson was asked by Newhard to reassign the work to boilermakers. Olson met with Newhard and Boiler- makers Shop Stewards Franklin and Payne on July 7 to discuss the matter but the Plumbers walkout that afternoon caused the meeting to end abruptly without resolution of the dispute. While Olson, on the morning of July 8, was in yard 2 checking on Plumbers Business Agent McCaffery's progress in persuading pipefitters to return- to work, Newhard approached and requested a meeting,that day with Olson to discuss the cooling coil dispute. Newhard told Olson that if Olson did not meet with the Boilermakers and resolve the dispute by noon, there would be no boilermakers on the job. Olson thereafter contacted Boilermakers Business Agent Johnson and International Representative Stender. They informed Olson that Lockheed should not meet with the stewards. The union officials also said that the stewards should be told by Lockheed to bring their complaint to the Union. Olson so advised Newhard. 7 All dates are 1971 unless otherwise indicated. PIPEFITTERS , LOCAL 32 1139 Several hundred boilermakers held a meeting on company time shortly after noon on July 8. Olson had agreed to give the men 10 minutes for a meeting and as Olson approached the group to get the boilermak- ers back to work, he heard Steward Franklin state: I've been directed by Mr. Stender to tell you people to go back to work. If I take anybody off the job, or I leave the yard, he's going to throw me out of the union. I requested Mr. Johnson to be here, he refused. I can't tell you to leave the yard. As Lockheed officials started to move the boilermak- ers back to work, one of the workers exhorted the men to "support our shop stewards . . . let's go." The boilermakers then left the yard virtually en masse; by late afternoon only about 10 percent of the boilermak- ers were on the job and Lockheed, faced with the pipefitters' walkout the prior afternoon, closed the shipyard. Olson thereafter contacted Johnson and Stender but boilermakers did not return to work until July 13 when the Company reopened the shipyard to pipefitters and other Lockheed employees. B. Work in Dispute 1. Case 19-CD-186 The dispute involves the assignment of the task of drilling or redrilling three holes in the foundation or bracket used to support the resilient mounts which support the pipe hangers on pipe systems on board destroyers under construction at Lockheed's Seattle shipyard. 2. Case 19-CD-187 The dispute involves the assignment of the task of drilling mounting holes for, and mounting, cooling coils and gravity coils tied to the chilled water system for air conditioning on board destroyers and other ships under construction in Lockheed's Seattle ship- yard. C. Contentions of the Parties 1. Case 19-CD-186 Lockheed contends that Plumbers violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by striking on July 7 with an object of compelling Lockheed to assign the work of drilling or redrilling holes in brackets used to support resilient mounts to pipefitters represented by Plumb- ers rather than to machinists represented by Machin- ists. It asserts that Plumbers is responsible for the Plumbers shop steward's conduct in leading the walkout. While Lockheed takes no position concern- ing which of the competing unions should be awarded the work in dispute, it notes that at the hearing it sought withdrawal of the charge in Case 19-CD-186 because it, Plumbers, and Machinists had agreed upon a settlement of the dispute. Plumbers asserts that the notice of hearing in the instant case should be quashed because there is no evidence that it engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. It argues that neither the Local nor the International sanctioned or ratified the walkout and, in fact, Plumbers representatives attempted to get the men back to work after the walkout. Furthermore, Plumbers contends that Lock- heed invited the strike by Olson's allegedly intemper- ate statement to the pipefitters on July 7 that they "go home or go to work." Plumbers argues, however, that should the Board decide to reach the merits of the dispute, the work should be awarded to machinists rather than to pipefitters. In this regard, Plumbers asserts that, the tripartite agreement to resolve the dispute should be given effect by the Board. Finally, the Plumbers contends that inasmuch as the record reveals that machinists historically have performed the work in dispute, it should be assigned to them rather than to boilermakers. Machinists argues that the work of drilling or redrilling holes in brackets used to support resilient mounts on board destroyers historically has been assigned to its members. Machinists further contends that boilermakers have claimed the work in only two isolated instances during the past several years and, in any event, machinists are more efficient. Finally, Machinists too would have the Board give effect to the tripartite agreement. Boilermakers argues that the Board should not give effect to the tripartite agreement to settle the dispute because neither it nor Sheet Metal Workers was a party to that understanding. The disputed work should be assigned to boilermakers, that Union contends, because these men perform all the tasks for installing the bracket prior to attachment of the resilient mount by machinists. Thus, boilermakers fabricate the bracket in the steel shop; predrill about 98 percent of the holes at issue in the shop; and cut, burn, and shape the bracket on board the vessel prior to the welding of it in position. If the three holes at issue are correctly aligned, the resilient mount is installed by machinists. The dispute concerns those instances when holes must be drilled or redrilled to properly align the mount with the piping. Boilermak- ers claims that Lockheed has assigned this work to its members, as evidenced by the Company's "cost code." Moreover, Boilermakers asserts, the skills required to perform the disputed work are not possessed solely by machinists and it would be more economical and efficient for boilermakers to do the disputed task since they install the bracket and weld closed misaligned holes in the bracket before properly located holes are to be drilled. 1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Case 19-CD-187 Lockheed argues that there is reasonable cause to believe that Boilermakers violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by threatening to strike, and striking, on July 8 with an object of compelling Lockheed to assign the work of drilling mounting holes for, and mounting, cooling coils and gravity coils on board destroyers and other vessels to boilermakers repre- sented by Boilermakers rather than to machinists represented by Machinists. Lockheed contends that Boilermakers is responsible for the action of Chief Steward Newhard in threatening a walkout and for the, failure of the other stewards to prevent the July 8 strike. The Company takes no position as to which union should be awarded the disputed work. Boilermakers contends that the notice of hearing in Case 19-CD-187 should be quashed because there is no evidence that Boilermakers was responsible for the July 8 work stoppage. Alternatively, Boilermakers asserts that the disputed work should be assigned to its members since they fabricate and install the foundations to which are bolted gravity and cooling coils. In further support of this contention, Boiler- makers cites Lockheed's "cost code" and attachment No. 9 thereto as evidence that the task of drilling holes for, and mounting, gravity and cooling coils has in the past been assigned to boilermakers by the Company. It also claims that it would be more economical and efficient for boilermakers, who install foundations for coils, to drill the requisite holes and bolt on the coils. No particular skill is required for this work, Boiler- makers argues. - Machinists asserts that the record clearly reveals that Lockheed historically has assigned the work in dispute in Case 19-CD-187 to machinists and that whenever the task of drilling mounting holes for, and mounting, cooling and gravity coils had been assigned to boilermakers, Machinists filed a grievance and was reassigned the work. It contends, therefore, that past practice and efficient operation of Lockheed's ship- yard warrant award of the disputed work to machin- ists. Although it intervened in the instant case, Plumbers does not claim the work in dispute. It contends that the task should be awarded to machinists on the basis of past practice and the agreement reached between Plumbers and Machinists concerning the disputed work, which recognized machinists' claim to the work vis-a-vis pipefitters represented by Plumbers. Sheet Metal Workers also intervened in the pro- 8 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , Local Union No 743, AFL-CIO (Bender & Shoemaker, Inc), 185 NLRB No. 106 9 Chairman Miller dissents on this point, and would quash the notice. The Boilermakers is not involved in the dispute giving rise to the ceeding but it did not file a brief or argue its position at the hearing. D. Applicability of the Statute Before the Board may proceed with the determina- tion of a dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated. 1. Case 19-CD-186 Contrary to Plumbers contention, we find that the circumstances under which Plumbers Chief Steward Birdsill and other union stewards led the July 7 pipefitters walkout clearly establish a prima facie case supporting the alleged violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. We find no merit in Plumbers assertion that because neither the Local nor the International sanctioned or ratified the strike, it is not responsible for the stewards' conduct, especially since the record reveals that Plumbers Business Representative McCaffery initiated the dispute on July 6.8 Nor do we find merit in Plumbers contention that Lockheed invited the strike by Olson's telling the pipefitters who had walked off the job to either go back to work or go home. Clearly, such an order by Lockheed manage- ment was reasonable under the circumstances. While Lockheed, Plumbers, and Machinists at- tempted to settle the instant dispute, Boilermakers, which claimed the disputed work too, was not a party to the agreement and we find therefore that there has been no adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act.9 From the above, and the entire record herein, we find, contrary to Plumbers, that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination. 2. Case 19-CD-187 Contrary to Boilermakers contention, we find that the circumstances under which Boilermakers Chief Steward Newhard threatened to have no boilermakers on the job by noon July 8 and Shop Steward Franklin failed to prevent the walkout that afternoon establish a prima facie case supporting the alleged violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. We find no merit in Boilermakers assertion that it was not responsible for the July 8 work stoppage since neither its business agent nor International representative, upon learning of the dispute from Olson, took meaningful steps then proceeding, is not an indispensable party, and, in the Chairman 's view, should not have been allowed to prevent an effective settlement The Chairman would therefore not find it necessary to reach the merits in this case PIPEFITTERS , LOCAL 32 1141 to prevent a strike. Moreover, Boilermakers has for several years been disputing Lockheed's assignment of the disputed work to machinists.10 From the above, and the entire record herein, we find, contrary to Boilermakers, that there is reasona- ble cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated and that the dispute is properly before the Board for determination. E. Merits of the Disputes Section 10(k) of the Act requires that the Board make an affirmative award of the disputed work after giving due consideration to all relevant factors. In International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743 (J, A. Jones Construction Co.)," the Board set forth the following criteria to be considered in the making of an affirmative award in a 10(k) proceeding: The Board will consider all relevant factors in determining who is entitled to the work in dispute, e.g., the skills and work involved, certifications by the Board, company and industry practice, agree- ments between unions and between employers and unions, awards of arbitrators, joint boards, and the AFL-CIO in the same or related cases, the assignment made by the employer, and the efficient operation of the employer's business.12 1. Case 19-CD-186 Machinists asserts that machinists can perform the work more efficiently since they have done it in the past. While the record does not reveal which group of employees Lockheed believes can perform the work most efficiently and economically, it seems clear from the record that it would be more efficient for machinists to align and redrill the three disputed holes, whenever necessary, since machinists are responsible for accurately bolting the resilient mounts to the brackets. This is another factor supporting assignment of the disputed work to machinists represented by Machinists. c. Agreement between the Unions and the Employer Plumbers, against whom the charge herein was filed, and Machinists, which union claimed the disputed work, reached an accord prior to the hearing, with which Lockheed agreed, that granted the disputed work to machinists.13 Boilermakers intervened in the case, claiming an interest in the work and therefore Lockheed's motion to withdraw the charge was denied. While the above-quoted agreement cannot be deemed an adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act, thus compelling quashing of the notice of hearing, since Boilermakers was not a party thereto, it is a factor Csupporting assignment of the disputed work to machinists. a. Company practice The record reveals that boilermakers fabricate the brackets used to support the resilient mounts, predrill three holes for the installation of mounts , and weld the brackets to the vessel under construction . Machin- ists then bolt the resilient mounts to the brackets through the predrilled holes . Whenever the holes are misaligned or absent , however, it has been Lockheed's practice to assign the disputed work of drilling three properly aligned holes to machinists , rather than to boilermakers, who weld closed the incorrect holes. The "cost code" did not change this practice. This company practice of using machinists to drill the three bracket holes for resilient mounts on board destroyers under construction at Lockheed's shipyard is a factor supporting an award of this work to these employees., b. Efficiency and economy of operation Boilermakers contends that its members would perform the disputed work more economically and efficiently than machinists since boilermakers fabri- cate and install the bracket, predrill the requisite three holes, and weld shut improperly aligned holes. 10 Bender & Shoemaker, supra, fn 8. 11 135 NLRB 1402. 12 Id at 1410-11. d. Skills and work involved Both machinists and boilermakers are capable of using a drill. This is a neutral factor not supporting assignment of the disputed work to either group of employees. 2. Case 19-CD-187 a. Company practice The record reveals that during the past several years Lockheed has assigned the work of drilling mounting holes for, and mounting, cooling coils and gravity coils on destroyers and other vessels to machinists rather than to boilermakers or sheet metal workers. The "cost code" did not vary the procedure at the shipyard. This is a factor supporting award of the disputed work to machinists. b. Efficiency and economy of operation Boilermakers asserts that its members can perform the task more efficiently and economically than machinists because boilermakers fabricate and install 13 Plumbers now contends that the work should be awarded to machinists pursuant to the tripartite agreement 1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the foundations to which are affixed gravity and cooling coils. Lockheed's piping superintendent testi- fied that use of machinists to drill holes for, and mount, cooling and gravity coils was efficient since it made sense to have the same craft drill the holes and mount the coils. In view of Lockheed's estimate of the various Unions' members' efficiency, we find that this is a factor supporting award of the disputed work to machinists. c. Agreement between the Unions Plumbers and Machinists on July 14 purported to resolve the instant dispute but Boilermakers and Lockheed were not parties to the agreement. The settlement granted the disputed work to machinists. In view of Boilermakers and Lockheed's nonpartici- pation in the agreement, we find that that settlement is not an adjustment of the dispute within the meaning of Section 10(k) of the Act. However, it is a factor supporting assignment of the disputed work to machinists.14 d. Skills and work involved No special skills are involved in drilling mounting holes for, and mounting, gravity and cooling coils, since most craftsmen can utilize such basic tools as a drill, etc. This is a neutral factor favoring award of the work to neither machinists nor boilermakers. Conclusions 1. Case 19-CD-186 On all the evidence, we determine the instant jurisdictional dispute in favor of Lockheed's machin- ists and find that Lockheed employees represented by Machinists, rather than pipefitters represented by Plumbers and boilermakers represented by Boiler- makers, are entitled to perform the work of drilling or, redrilling three holes in the foundation or bracket used to support the resilient mounts which support the pipe hangers on pipe systems on board destroyers under construction at Lockheed's Seattle shipyard. Company practice, efficiency and economy of opera- tion, and agreement between two of the Unions and the Employer favor this result. 2. Case 19-CD-187 On all the evidence, we determine the instant jurisdictional dispute in favor of Lockheed's machin- ists and find that Lockheed employees represented by Machinists, rather than boilermakers represented by Boilermakers, and sheet metal workers represented by Sheet Metal Workers, are entitled to perform the work of drilling mounting holes for, and mounting, cooling coils and gravity coils tied to the chilled water system for air conditioning on board destroyers and other ships under construction in Lockheed's Seattle ship- yard. Company practice, efficiency and economy of operation, and agreement between the Unions favor this result. In making the above determinations, we are assigning the disputed work to employees represented by the Machinists and not to that labor organization or its members. These determinations are limited to the particular disputes which gave rise to this proceeding. DETERMINATION 'OF DISPUTES Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , and upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the - entire record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby makes the following determination of dis- putes. In Case 19-CD- 186: 1. Employees who are employed by Lockheed Shipbuilding and Construction Company as machin- ists and who are currently represented by Internation- al Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge No. 79, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the. work of drilling or redrilling three holes in the foundation or bracket used to support the resilient mounts which support the pipe hangers on pipe systems on board destroyers under construction at Lockheed's Seattle shipyard. 2. United Association of Journeymen and Ap- prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO, and its Local 32, is not entitled , by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to force or require Lockheed to assign the above work to pipefitters who are represented by that labor 'organization. 3. Within 10 days of the date of this Decision and Determination of Disputes , United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO , and its Local 32 , shall notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing , whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring Lockheed , by means proscribed in Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act , to assign the work in dispute to pipefitters represented by Plumbers, rather than to machinists represented by Machinists. In Case 19-CD-187: 1. Employees who are employed by Lockheed 14 Chairman Miller would give no weight to an agreement to which sufficient , in his view , to justify the result reached, and he concurs in the disputant Boilermakers was not a party The other factors cited are assignment of work in this case. PIPEFITTERS, LOCAL 32 1143 Shipbuilding and Construction Company as machin- ists and who are currently represented by Internation- al Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge No. 79, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of drilling mounting holes for, and mounting, cooling coils and gravity coils tied to the chilled water system for air conditioning on board destroyers and other ships under construction in Lockheed 's Seattle shipyard. 2. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, and its Local 104 , is not entitled , by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D ) of the Act, to force or require Lockheed to assign the above work to boilermakers who are represented by that labor organization. 3. Within 10 days of the date of this Decision and Determination of Disputes, International Brother- hood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Black- smiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, and its Local 104, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, whether it will refrain from forcing or requiring Lockheed, by means proscribed in Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to boilermakers represented by Boilermakers, rather than to machinists represented by Machinists.