Pipefitters, Local No. 195

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 23, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 94 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada , Local No. 195 and Texas Oil
and Chemical Terminals . Case 23-CD-359
September 23, 1976
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
storage facility in Orange County, Texas. From Jan-
uary through May 1976, the Employer received total
gross revenues in excess of $150,000 from the inter-
state distribution of petrochemicals from its Texas
facility directly to customers located outside the
State of Texas. During the same 5-month period the
Employer received at its Texas facility goods valued
in excess of $1 million which were shipped directly
from firms located outside the State of Texas. Ac-
cordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by Texas Oil and Chemical Termi-
nals, herein called Texas Oil or Employer, alleging
that the United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of
the United States and Canada, Local No. 195, herein
called the Union or Pipefitters, had violated Section
8(b)(4)(D) of the Act by engaging in certain pro-
scribed activity with an object of forcing or requiring
the Employer to assign certain work to employees
represented by the Union, rather than to unrepre-
sented employees employed by the Employer. A
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert F.
Markey on June 2, 1976, at Beaumont, Texas.
The Union failed to appear at the hearing after
being duly served with notice of the hearing and tele-
phoned by the Hearing Officer. Counsel for the Em-
ployer and for South Hampton Company, the In-
tervenor, appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine the witness, and to adduce evidence bearing
on the issues. No briefs were filed by the parties.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Hearing Officer and finds that they are free from
prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer is a limited partnership established
in the State of Texas where it is engaged in the busi-
ness of importing, storing, and interstate distribution
via pipeline, barge, and oceangoing vessels of petro-
chemical products. The Employer maintains its prin-
cipal office in Silsbee, Texas, and a pumping and
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
We find that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
During April and May 1976, the Employer was
involved in connecting a South Hampton Company
petrochemical pipeline to its storage tanks in Orange
County, Texas. The disputed work involves the in-
stallation of piping, flanges, and valves on the stor-
age tanks located on the Employer's premises. At the
time the dispute arose, the Employer had assigned
this work to its own employees who were not repre-
sented by any union.
Subsequent to hearing rumors that-the Pipefitters
claimed the work and were planning to picket, Chief
Engineer Fred R. Crawford, on or about April 26,
1976, met with the Union's business agent, Valentine,
at the Pipefitters Hall in Nederland, Texas. At this
meeting, Crawford explained that the disputed work
would be performed by employees of Texas Oil. Val-
entine maintained that the disputed work was new
construction and that the Union was performing all
the new construction in this area.' Crawford testified
that the conversation ended with a statement by Val-
entine that "I [Crawford] could go ahead and do
what I wanted to do, and that he [Valentine] would
do what he had to do . . .."
Around 10:30 a.m. on May 3, 1976, a union busi-
ness agent, Ellis, and two other men approached
Crawford and Working Foreman Waldo at the Texas
Oil facility in Orange County, Texas, asked them by
whom the piping work would be performed, and,
when told that Texas Oil employees would perform
'Valentine did not specify what new construction the Union was han-
dling in this area Further, no evidence was produced at the hearing to show
the Union was performing all the new construction in the area.
226 NLRB No. 6
PIPEFITTERS, LOCAL NO. 195 95
the work, stated that a picket would be placed at the
facility gate.
Shortly thereafter the Union commenced picketing
the only entrance to the Employer's facility with a
sign that stated:
This is to advise that South Hampton
Company does not employ nor do they
have a contract with Pipefitters Local 195.
Thereafter, Texas Oil employees who were perform-
ing the work in dispute left the worksite and refused
to cross the picket line until after the picketing end-
ed.2 On May 10, 1976, the United States District
Court of the Eastern District of Texas in Beaumont,
Texas, pursuant to a petition for an injunction under
Section 10(l) of the Act, entered a temporary re-
straining order enjoining picketing, threats, and other
coercive conduct by the Union at the Employer's fa-
cility. A stipulated injunction was entered by the
court on May 12, 1976.
B. Applicability of the Statute
As indicated, on April 26 and May 3, 1976, union
representatives claimed the disputed work. Thereaf-
ter the Union picketed the only entrance to the
Employer's facility. Crawford testified that one of
the pickets told him in the presence of Ellis that "the
only way we [the Employer] would ever get the pipe
installed on those tanks was to sign a contract with
Local 195, the Pipefitters." It is clear that the object
of the Pipefitters picketing was to have the Employer
assign the disputed work to the Union. There is no
evidence that the parties have agreed upon a method
for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute. Accord-
ingly, we find that there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated and
that the dispute is properly before the Board for de-
termination under Section 10(k) of the Act.
The record contains evidence only with respect to the
following relevant factors:
1. The collective-bargaining agreement
The Employer has no collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Union and thus is subject to no con-
tractual commitment requiring it to employ the
latter's members to install the piping on the storage
tanks.
2. Employer assignment and preference
The Employer has assigned the work and prefers
the assignment to its own employees who have per-
formed the work in a satisfactory manner.
3. Skills required
The record shows the Employer's unrepresented
employees are all qualified to perform the disputed
work. In particular, Crawford testified that the weld-
ers had all passed a pipe welding test and were certi-
fied to perform pipe welding.
Conclusion
In the absence of any contractual obligation to the
Union for performance of the disputed work, or evi-
dence with respect to any other relevant factors, we
conclude that the assignment of the work to its em-
ployees by the Employer, their qualification to do the
work, and their performance of the work in a satis-
factory manner require an award of the disputed
work to the unrepresented employees of the Employ-
er.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
C. Merits of the Dispute
The limited testimony presented by the Employer
and the failure of the Pipefitters to appear at the
hearing resulted in evidence pertinent to only a few
of the relevant factors which the Board normally
considers in making an award of the disputed work.'
2 The employees of the two subcontractors who were performing work on
the premises, General American Transportation Corporation and Nacog-
doches Fabricating Company, stopped working when the picketing com-
menced and refused to cross the picket Imes until after the picketing ended
The employees of the third subcontractor, Dillahunty Electric Company,
worked for the remainder of the day and then refused to cross the picket
line until the picketing ceased
3 N L.R B. v. Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union , Local 1212,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO [Columbia Broad-
casting System], 364 U.S. 573 (1961), International Association of Machinists,
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the foregoing
findings and the entire record in this case, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board hereby makes the fol-
lowing Determination of Dispute:
1. The Employer's unrepresented employees are
entitled to perform the work of installing the piping,
flanges, and valves on its storage tanks.
2. United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of
the United States and Canada, Local No. 195, is not
entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act, to force or require the Employer to award
Lodge No 1743, AFL-CIO (J A Jones Construction Company), 135 NLRB
1402, 1410-11 (1962)
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the above work to its members or to employees it
represents.
3. Within 10 days of the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing &
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Cana-
da, Local No. 195, shall notify the Regional Director
for Region 23, in writing, whether or not it will re-
frain-from forcing or requiring the Employer, by
means proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(D), to award the
work in dispute to its members rather than to the
unrepresented employees.